Alois said:
On the contrary, while the existence of “God” is not self-evident, we can nevertheless prove by demonstration (through logic, natural sense, and human reasoning) the actual intrinsic existence of an eternal “perfect somethingness” that is the cause of all extrinsic existence, and that it is this Being that we call “God”.
I’m afraid your explanation won’t cut it with an atheist. If he/she can’t acknowledgable God with one of their 5 senses then he doesn’t exist. You and I both know that God’s presence is beyond the senses, but the atheists limit themselves to those 5. Sadly, theirs is strictly a “material” world.
People are afraid of death? They’re afraid of meaninglessness? We’re strongly imitatitve - more so than other primates? God used to be a good way to explain things, and it’s stuck with us? People are brought up that way? Religious institutions are institutions and seek to perpetuate themselves? Because we see patterns in static - we see the hand of God in chance occurrences? Because it makes us happy? We want to believe that it will be all right in the end? We want to believe that the good are rewarded and the wicked punished? We can’t get through life without a father figure? Go ask a psychologist.
I think I mentioned this previously on this thread, but it’s so neat that I’ll run the risk of repeating myself. We actually have at least seven senses, and possily more (I’m not entirely sure). The sixth is obvious - our sense of balance. The seventh is less well-known - proprioception. It’s the sense that tells us what position our body is. For example, if you wake up blindfolded, you can tell how you’re arranged without using your other senses. This particular sense is actually fairly important - it becomes rather difficult to walk without it.
I’ve never heard of these, but ok, I’ll buy it.
This is great and all… but do you intend to answer the question I asked you? I don’t exactly see what your counter-question had to do with it; I answered it because that’s just the polite thing to do. I don’t particularly like speculating about psychology; I rather think it pointless. Why do people believe what they believe? Beats the snot out of me. I’m more concerned with whether these beliefs are justified.
That is the definition of a monotheistic God. A God as described in the scriptures.
You’re misusing the definition of intrinsic. Existence is intrinsic of itself and everything is intrinsic to existence. There is no seperation between intrinsic existence and extrinsic existence, because of all existence is contained within existence. Saying otherwise is changing the meaning of the word itself. Changing the meaning is a leap not supported by logic, and only support by your own claims.
You can respond to my posts that show the fallacy in your logic. I’m not going to continue debating with you if you continue to dodge points as you have been.
You told me you could prove the existence of a God logically. Don’t try to shift the burden of proof, as you have still failed to shoulder it. I have responded to your false analogies, (posts 773, 775, and 780) and have shown you the definition of existence: everything that exists. You are making the claim that we do not exist, I have shown that to be logically false as not only is the basis for it false, but the claim itself is illogical. What are you confused about here? Why do you keep citing arguments I’ve already refuted?
Because telling me that I just “don’t accept that” means that you’re right? I have shown you why your ideas on the number system are unsound, and now you must back up your reasoning behind it.
Am I? Here’s what you said right above the number analogy.
They don’t. People regard the number system as an infinite series of numbers, and that’s in fact what it is. The infinite sum of all numbers. It is not a formula that produces a result, it is all of the numbers there are. There is nothing we use as a source of numbers, we use the number system composed of the numbers themselves.
An example that you’ve founded point after point on. If it were a poor example, it can not hold up any of the things you attempt to base off of it.
Anytime you’re ready, go ahead and share them.
You have yet to provide another analogy that logically shows the possibility for a God to exist. The number system was suppose to be it, but it now seems that you are saying otherwise. Do you have another analogy, or another logical reason to believe in a God?
For one, numbers aren’t manifested. They remain a logical concept applied to reality. For instance, you see apples on a table. You logically state that there are 2 apples. Secondly, you continue to assume that there is a pool in which we pull numbers out of. We don’t, we use a particular part of the infinite number set to logically state that there is an “x” amount of something. There isn’t some entity that gives us these numbers.
You haven’t provided logical and reasonable evidence. The only thing that could coerce me to follow you is blind faith, and I guess I lack that trait.
A constituent of existence? You’re taking a step of regression that isn’t logically possible. Existence is everything, existence is the base. There is nothing more fundamental then existence.
This is akin to trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint something smaller than 0, you can’t. Using your definition of essence, it is existence. Existence is the essence of everything.
Do you not see what I’ve been saying? You’re defining existence when you speak of perfect somethingness. It has always existed, is by itself (because there is nothing more), and is compose of what’s in itself. You then have to connect this to a sentient God that is the source of everything, not just everything.
Agreeable so far, except for your slight-of-hand trick in replacing definition with “perfect somethingness”. Can you differentiate the two?
No, it doesn’t. Everything within existence and perfect somethingness is intrinsic, for it is what makes up the totality of existence, or the perfectness of perfect somethingness.
You have not shown that we are extrinsic. It is an illogical position to take that this existence is extrinsic, because existence consists of all possibilities, and we are one of those possibilities.
This is, again, my point. It no longer remains supernatural if it is logical, it becomes natural.
Not really. If we saw randomness, we would conclude that there is no guiding logic behind the realm. It wouldn’t be logical, and therefore, not natural either.
No, you define infinite existence in that post. You then throw in the catch phrase of “perfect somethingness” to make existence seem closer to the definition of a God. More on this next.
Faulty logic.
Like I have said, you can not reclassify something and say it is something else. Existence is defined (and not just by me) as everything that exists. Your PS is defined as everything that exists. Your PS is, therefore, existence coated in a new, God friendly paint color. Is a switch a router because they both handle network flow?
You have not shown your last sentence to be true. You’ve defined PS as existence, if you wish for it to be more, then give me some examples on how it differs from “everything that exists”.
You shot yourself in the foot here. I think we both know that I have been classifying existence as all possibilities, I mean, I’ve only said that in just about every post… It is not just the manifested universe. It is all possibilities, it is all that is.
Refer to the above posts.
Everything is still a quantity or arrangement of the base partical. We refer to an atom as an atom because it’s much more simple to do so than to name off the attributes of its base partical. Much like we refer to a chair as a chair because it is much easier than calling it “Four wooden legs, a flat wooden board on top of those legs, and a backrest of wood”. They are not extrinsic, because their base is intrinsic.
This is untrue. Existence (aka PS) is defined as everything there is. All possibilities. We are one of those possibilities, and if we were to be removed existence would no longer be complete. We are a part of the composition of existence, and we are insintric because if you were to remove our manifested universe, you would cause existence to not contain all possibilities.
As I’ve said before, your concept of “essence” is something not present in reality, or logic. This is proof of such. To say that there is something more fundamental than existence is illogical.
I remind you again that your term “perfect somethingness” is, as it stands now, just another term for existence. You then try to attach additional traits on to it without founded them in your original proof.
Nope, shown to be false. In fact, shown to be false in the same manner as I have shown many of your other analogies to be false.
This is untrue, as I have shown before. There is nothing manifesting everything. To claim that there is would be no different than claiming a God exists. You’ve run yourself into a logical wall.
Because there is none in it? It is just you asserting, and claiming that existence isn’t what it is defined as with no evidence (logical or empirical) to prove otherwise.
This isn’t even close to the definition of extrinsic.
Same issue as above.
Perfect somethingness IS EXISTENCE. If you wish to claim otherwise, you need to have a logical foundation from which to seperate the two. You have NOT established this foundation anywhere. Post 735 is nothing more than an attempt to reclassify existence (all that exists) as perfect somethingness, which you yourself define as all that exists. You attempt to make the claim that perfect somethingness is some sort of outside being, but this is not a claim you have supported by your original logical basis. It is a seperate claim that you have made, a seperate assumption.
Both are subsequently false. Oh, and remember what I said about making elaborate claims without waiting for verification of them?
I’ll just expose one of the many logical flaws in your statements here and be done with it. - You assert that there is intrinsic existence, and therefore, existence. However…
You here assert that extrinsic existence exists. For existence itself to exist, it must contain all forms of existence, and as an infinite set defined as being made up of all forms of existence, it must be made up of our existence as well, extrinsic or intrinsic. Thus, there is no extrinsic or intrinsic existence when you’re talking about the totality of existence, and it is a logical flaw to suggest such, in the way you are doing.
It is not the source or cause, it is. I’ve explained this before, and already show one of the logical flaws in your statements, refer to those pervious statements.
Making a claim on a broken base.
How many times do I have to say this? Just as I had shown in my response to that post, you defined infinite existence, not a seperate infinite existence. You are now adding extra traits on to existence to make it “perfect somethingness” without logical backing.
You demonstrated infinite existence. You invented a term that sounded more like God in an attempt to alter the meaning of existence to that of God. You then created the illogical false dichotomy of intrinsic and extrinsic existence as an attempt to save face on your example. I have shown your analogies on the subject to be false, and have shown that position itself to be false. I think it’s fairly obvious that the only one in denial here is you.
You showed infinite existence in the four steps. Your leap in faith comes with claiming that there is more to perfect somethingness than the definition of existence itself.
There is no other form of existence, as I have shown. Existence is all there is, and it is illogical to claim otherwise. Oh, and before you cite your analogies for us being nothing, I’d advise you to take a look and respond to my refutations of them.
False.
You make the claim that there is only one manifestation in existence?
All of what we imagine is made up of everything we have sensed before. You cannot visualize a color you haven’t seen. You can’t imagine a thought with no senses in it.
False. All parts of them do.
Because, as I have shown, it is a false and illogical differentiation.
No, much like the number system is not a generality of all numbers. Everything that exists exists. This, as you have claimed yourself by use of your PS examples, proves that existence as a whole, a definition of everything that exists or could exist.
hurst said:
Well, I respond to all of yours, (save 1 or 2 if they are a continuing trend) but I can’t say the same for you. You still have yet to respond to my refutations of your “we are nothing” hypothesis, and thus have not backed up your claims on intrinsic and extrinsic existences.
This is a false dichotomy. There can be somethingness and nothingness. Both forms don’t need to be perfect.
You again assume totalities. This may or may not be the case.
This is illogical as shown earlier.
Refer to pervious posts.
You continue to assert when shown that our existence isn’t extrinsic. Stop and respond to either my arguments in this round, or in previous rounds. Both, if you can.
Wrong, as shown earlier in this round.
Wrong, as shown earlier in this round.
So you refuse to answer his question, and then accuse him of failing to answer your question? Please, don’t be hypocritical.
I did not merely make a claim. Nor did I say the p.s. “gives its traits” to existence. It is the essence of existence. And “essence” is not a trait. “Essence” means “the constituent substance”.
I did this in post #735, and I will do so again:
You have typically merely claimed they are incorrect. Furthermore, a proposition is not “based” on analogies; analogies are used to convey understanding in an incomplete way.
I have done so and shown that on the contrary, your rebuttals ignore the evidence, logic, and reasoning I have laid out.
I have shown the “notion of God” to be the name given to instrinsic existence, which is supported by logic, sense, and reason.
Yes, I have. Refer to posts #735 and #791.
But I have. Are you simply in denial?
Let me put it this way: if Einstein wrote his paper on general relativity because he thought a blue fairy named Shamanabla told him to… would that be evidence that general relativity was wrong? If all Catholic priests were pederasts, would that be evidence against theism? If all atheists were atheists because they couldn’t stand the thought of a mind greater than theirs… would that be evidence against atheism? In short: it does’t help your case to tell the devil’s advocate that she doesn’t really believe in the argument’s she’s making. So this does nothing to further the discussion.
There can not be a constituent of existence. I have addressed this earlier. You’re trying to regress without logic. You have two options in this case: to infinitely regress, or to stop at what we can know; that existence is everything. You can’t regress to something we don’t know and stick at that position. (an essence of the infinite everything?) It’d be like using a particle smaller than a quark for the basis of your mathmatics with no actual knowledge of one.
Perfect nothingness, you mean? I find it odd that you switch that word out when describing nothingness.
According to you, we are nothing. If we are truly nothing, but feel as if we are something, how could we know that total nothingness doesn’t exist? We may be in total nothingness, using the illogic you’ve provided earlier.
According to you, we could be total nothingness. It is illogical to say “We are nothing, but we know there is something.” If we are nothing, then everything could be nothing.
False dichotomy. There could be partial existence and patial non-existence.
Yes, complete existence has always existed. It is, as I said, infinite.
This is a false conclusion that doesn’t take the full situation into account. A cell phone is essential to itself, but also to the parts that compose it. Complete existence is much the same way, but infinite.
Yes, I agree. Complete existence would contain all possible existences.
Not quite, it already has everything. Everything that exists is essential to it, and it has it all. Complete existence. There is nothing outside of it.
False conclusion. For one, there is nothing outside of complete existence. Secondly, all forms of existence are intrinsic because removing one possibilitity voids it from being complete existence. More on this later.
Yes, complete existence is infinite.
More directly: there is nothing else that could possibly exist.
Yes.
No, it is perfect in that it contains all other things. Somethingness does not give traits to things, as I have said before. These are possible forms of existence that make up the totality of existence, just as it is in all infinite sets.
Not if applied incorrectly.
This is untrue. Existence contains all possibilities, change is one of those possibilities. You’re irrationally assuming that we are the only form of manifestation, true complete existence would consist of an infinite amount of manifestations, as well as the possibilities for such.
False if the above is taken into account, and if it isn’t. Our existence would still be critical because it is a form of existence. Without it, existence wouldn’t be complete, or infinite. You have failed to address this point many times now, I’d appreciate it if you did.
Incorrect. If we are to assume a complete existence, this complete existence would contain all possible change. There would be an infinite amount of possibilities. This rationale may sound familiar, because it is the basis for the belief of multiverses.
A none-essential existence to complete existence is an oxymoron. By definition, a complete existence would contain all possibile forms of existence.
However, you choose to express the original idea of most of your arguments through analogies. This is usually seen as a logical fallacy, but I stuck with it because they do allow for the visualization of what you are proposing. You have only provided a logical proof for your “4 steps to God” proposition above. You’ll have to do better than that to show the logicality of a God.
Have they? No offense, but I don’t see you making an attempt to refute them. I’ve given you the same explantion for the flaws in your logic for post after post now, but you just shrug it off and say “No it’s right.” Well, then you’re going to need to show a correct, logical basis, because the one you’ve proposed for an insintric PS is not, and I have given you step-by-step the reasons why.
Refer to my responses to them…
No, I agree that the converse of perfect nothingness is complete existence.