There is no God

[hurst]

Alois:

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.

And how many times do have to say that I did not define it; instead, it was what came as the result of logic, sense, and reasoning. If anything, it is “defined” by the logic of “nothing comes from total nothingness” and the sense of “but there is not total nothingness now”. It is the conclusion that there must have always been something. How much more logical can it be? Whether you call it “perfect somethingness” or “infinite existence”, or “XYZ” doesn’t matter! It is demonstrated as what it is. So please stop tacking on a word, and then running with that word as if the word is the basis of what I demonstrated. It is not!

Whatever was demonstrated needs to be understood better. And to do that properly, you can’t get hung up on words, though we must use words to try to describe what we have irrefutably discovered. Are you trying to avoid such hangups?

And I continued with reason and logic and sense, and showed that this “somethingness” must only have been “essential somethingness”, because it obviously does not contain all manifestations of possibilities. So right there, we learn that the “infinite existence” does not contain manifestations as though it were a proper part of infinite existence. (Similar to the infinite set of Integers not containing the Rationals which it forms).

But you are stuck on a tautology that existence is everything. This is true by definition, but not relevant to the demonstration. For we are learning the essence of existence through logic, sense, and reasoning. It is irrefutable regardless of the terms. And yes, it also looks like “a God” to me, too. So that only shows how logical it is to “believe” there is “a God” - because it can clearly be demonstrated with certainty that it actually exists. But the neat thing is that we are getting to know what it is possible to know naturally about this somethingness. And we can relate to it with more than just a vague notion. It is certain!

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Here’s a goal for you to shoot for. Using the basis of your argument, seperate “perfect something” from the definition of existence as “all that exists.”

I thought I already did this, but I am willing to do this again. Here is a modified version.

1. Nothing can come from “total nothingness”
2. But there is not “total nothingness” now
3. Therefore, there was never “total nothingness”
4. Therefore, there was always “something”
5. But there is something now that has not always been
6. Therefore, there is a distinction between something that always was, and something that has not always been
7. But something that has not always been cannot begin to be something from nothing
8. Therefore, something that has not always been began from something that already was, either something else that has not always been or something that always was
9. Therefore there are three types of things:

1. 
   *] something that always was
   *] something that has not always been:
   • 
     *] that began from something that always was
     *] that began from something that has not always been
     
     Do you see any faulty logic or fallacy here?
     
     hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

How is it “just as much a leap”? I showed in 4 steps using logic, natural sense, and human reasoning. There is no leap of faith, nor blind claim here.

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.

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Alois:

Yes, but more specifically, intrinsic existence.

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.

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Alois:

There is clearly a hierarchy of existence even in the visible universe.

False.

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Alois:

So at a minimum, the logic is clear with respect to concepts and objects: that there is a giant pool of non-manifested concepts from which manifested existence pulls its possibilities out of.

You make the claim that there is only one manifestation in existence?

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Alois:

An example is an author thinking up a story, and then writing it down. Another example is an artist visualizing a scene, and then painting it.

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.

This makes sense, but you can also synthesize a new thing from them that was never before manifested.

Alois:

It is clear that there is no end to the number of stories or paintings that could be produced in this manner, and that they don’t all exist in the universe already.

False. All parts of them do.

A denial is not a refutation.

Alois:

Why do you continue to ignore extrinsic, or manifest, existence as separate from intrinsic existence?

Because, as I have shown, it is a false and illogical differentiation.

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Alois:

What is the point of that? It neither proves nor disproves anything. Is it not a generality, merely a general reference to all things that exist? It includes both the eternal intrinsic and the (past, present, and future) extrinsic existences. In a general sense of the word, it includes the p.s. along with what is later created by the p.s.

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.

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Alois:

Once again, it is the PS. It’s everything, and that’s all you’ve shown PS to be: everything. It is when you make the claims that PS “created” things that you move from logic to faith. It’s when you assume that the PS is God.

I have made a modified demonstration for you in the preceding post (#899).

Pardon the repetition, but it does emphasize that everything goes back to that issue.

hurst

 

[hurst]

EnterTheBowser:

That there exists some all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-just entity, who created the universe, …[snip]… who exists everywhere, who exists outside of time and space, and so forth - or that this thing does not exist?

This part does not require faith, and has been demonstrated with certainty to exist.

How about this: there are only three types of things that exist:

1. something that always was
2. something that has not always been that came from something that always was
3. something that has not always been that came from something that has not always been

It doesn’t take faith to conclude this much. We can know it with certainty from logic, observation, and human reasoning. See post #899.

It is clear that everything is founded, either directly or indirectly upon (1).

EnterTheBowser:

… who has taken a particular interest in a few scraps of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen growing on the edge of a miniscule hunk of rock orbiting a lukewarm sun in an immense void, and who sent his son to this planet to redeem these scraps from their sins - by dying - and who will take those who follow his orders up into a wonderful everlasting paradise upon death, and who condemns those who do not follow his orders to everlasting torment, and who actively intervenes in the daily affairs of said scraps, …

This God sounds like a pretty darn extraordinary hypothesis on the face of it.

This part requires faith and obedience before becoming certain.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

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.

I have done so in various places, but will do so again.

We are nothing in the sense that we are instrinsically nothing, by ourselves. But we can be like something within somethingness itself. So our existence is defined by the boundary between our nothingness and somethingness. In a similie, we are like bubbles in a batch of dough, nothing in ourselves; “existing”, in a sense, inside the dough but not as an essential part of it. I think this is a good (though imperfect) illustration of how it can be. Without the dough we could not have any form, nor particpate in any existence at all, because we are really just nothing apart from the infinite something that formed us in itself. But this is all just by illustration.

Logically, I have shown in post #899 that there must be something that began from something else, but I did not show how that could be. This illustration helps one imagine how it might be.

Alois:

I agree we can’t fully “understand” perfect somethingness, ever.

However, we can certainly know it exists. It is logical, reasonable, and proven by the lack of total nothingness. And the observation of temporal forms of existence is proof that there is a kind of existence that is not eternal, and thus not intrinsically part of the logically existing eternal “perfect somethingness”.

This is a false dichotomy.

I did not set up a dichotomy as such. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic is a dependency in existence, and not a separation of contradicting existences. They are indeed opposite in substance, but the one depends upon the other, even as a hole depends substance to take its form.

Alois:

There can be somethingness and nothingness. Both forms don’t need to be perfect.

To be fair, you must show this is true, and not simply claim it is so.

Alois:

Rather, perfect somethingness is intrinsic existence: not composed of anything else, for it has already been demonstrated that “total nothingness never existed”, thus, “perfect somethingness always existed”.

You again assume totalities. This may or may not be the case.

Proffering a doubt is not a refutation.

Alois:

And I am not saying that it is separate from “existence”. But I am saying that extrinsic existence is separate from it, though yet dependent upon it.

This is illogical as shown earlier.

On the contrary, it is logical as shown earlier. For example, a hole in the ground is separate from the ground though dependent upon it to exist. The hole is extrinsic to the ground in which it subsists.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Perfect nothingness, you mean? I find it odd that you switch that word out when describing nothingness.

I explained the reason for this in a previous post. If you prefer “total nothingness”/“total somethingness”, then fine. The point is that there self-existed either an all-encompassing nothingness or an all-encompassing somethingness. The key is self-existing in either case.

Alois:

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.

Thank you for asking clarification on this point.

No, we are not “truly nothing”. Rather, we are nothing “of ourselves”. We are somehow in the all-encompassing somethingness, but not actually inherent or essential to it. We are like a bubble of nothing inside the somethingness, and our existence is formed on the boundaries of our nothingness to the somethingness in which we subsist. Like a fish in an ocean, or perhaps a hollow ice cube in water. It is as if the somethingness is sharing or giving itself to us for us to be with, to live with, to exist with. This reveals the charity of somethingness! Now that’s really something

Alois:

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.

Explained above.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

1. Sense: But there is something now that has not always been.

This is untrue. Existence contains all possibilities, change is one of those possibilities.

I do not deny it contains that “possibility”. But it didn’t always contain the actual manifestation.

Alois:

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.

Actually, you are the one making irrational assumptions here. You are basically saying there are infinite universes containing every possible manifestation of every possible choice at every possible moment. And your “proof” is to assert that it would be irrational to assume they don’t exist because of your claim that complete existence is the set of all possibilities.

But even if you looked at “complete existence” as a set, it cannot contain the manifestation of all possibilities, even as no infinite set can simultaneously contain all subsets of itself due to the fact that the subsets must also contain the ensuing subsets.

But if you allowed the subsets to be a referenced existence, and not actually a member of the actual set, then you have an infinite set of actual values from which you may arbitrarily denote infinite subsets.

Also, for your theory to hold true, then there must be infinite instances of ourselves in those infinite manifestations. But we are only conscious of one present moment in time, and of one history in our memory. We are not conscious in multiple different places at once. Thus, even if there were other manifestations of ourselves, we are still only conscious in one, which we were not conscious of always.

So my sensibilities prove to me that I am not making any irrational assumption regarding forms of manifestations. There is still something now that has not always been, namely, our consciousness of the present moment, and the history thereof, and the combinations thereof with other conscious persons.

Alois:

1. Reasoning: Therefore, something now exists that is not essential to “perfect somethingness”

False… 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.

I have by now in other posts, but if what I posted is insufficient, let me know.

Alois:

Note that we observe things in the universe that were not always there. …

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.

Well, a multiverse is irrelevant, because it does not contain our consciousness in every one, as revealed by our own sense. So the path we end up taking is something that has not always been, and thus could not have been essential or intrinsic to the “complete existence” that always was.

We are brushing against the fact that the “complete existence”/“total somethingness” must have aspects of consciousness… which is logical, since we do, and it had to come from somewhere because we weren’t always around to give it to ourselves.

Alois:

Note that this also demonstrates that the intrinsic existence cannot be “composed” of these non-essential existences.

A none-essential existence to complete existence is an oxymoron. By definition, a complete existence would contain all possibile forms of existence.

But I am not using your definition. I have shown existence as it must be, and I reference that. The terminology must follow the evidence, and not vice versa.

What I have discovered through this is that while “complete existence” must also contain the actual possibilities, it cannot have always contained all the actual manifestations thereof. Otherwise all of our decisions would have already been made.

Alois:

… 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.

Perhaps you should define what you mean then, when you say “show the logicality of believing in a God”. I certainly have no intention of satisfying a contructivist mentality in a formal manner. I took it somewhat colloquially.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

1. Corollary: Therefore, there must have always been “perfect somethingness”

False dichotomy. There could be partial existence and patial non-existence.

Proffering a vague possibility is not a refutation. Besides, what is “partial existence” or “partial non-existence”?

Please see post #899 for reference to modified demonstration.

Alois:

Your logical example is flawed. I agree with the outcome of there being a possible infinite existence, but to assume proof of “perfect somethingness” is faulty. Furthermore, I continue to contend that perfect somethingness is a simple throw-off to associate existence closer to that of God.

The term doesn’t really matter yet, as long as it is referencing the somethingness that always was.

You will have to drop any “prejudice” against the notion or term of “God” and simply learn what it ought to truly refer to.

Alois:

A more accurate description of the counter to total nothingness would be complete existence.

As I said, I am fine with “total somethingness” or even “complete existence”, as long as you mean something to the effect of an all-encompassing somethingness that always was, and not just a collection of individual things.

Alois:

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.

How is a cell phone essential to the parts that compose it? It is the opposite. The parts are essential to the phone. For example, a wire in the cell phone is not dependent upon the cell phone to function as a wire. It is a wire regardless of the cell phone. Instead, the phone is dependent upon the wire to function as a phone.

hurst

 

[Sparetherod]

Excuse me gang if I got in the way of ongoing conversations. I will be straight forward with you. I am an atheist. I do not come here to provoke you or convert you, and indeed I am not interested in long debates on God’s existance, causality, etc. I already know what most theists and Catholics believe and how they defend these beliefs. What I’m more interested in, is how you think. I’m afraid the atheist forums provide few perspectives from a religious view point on my concerns. A few questions: How do you convince a believer that John Edwards cannot talk to spirits, but Moses did? How do you convince a patient that reflexology (a belief that massaging the feet can affect internal organs) did not cure his kidney disease when it improved, but prayer can and might have? How would you convince an alien visitor to earth that an almighty creator cares who he sleeps with?