Proof for the existence of God

I want to see what you guys think, if you agree or not, so we can find meaning and settle this dispute. I also posted this in the god topic above, however I think this is good enough for its own topic.

To answer this question we need to first establish common ground at the most basic level.

As humans we are naturally rational meaning we use our thoughts or we think about things to find meaning. To clarify this, we use reason to find meaning.

To go further it must be stated that some things are clear and those things are the basic things. if nothing is clear then there are no distinctions and no meaning.

Our thoughts are governed and have three laws. this is also called "Reason in Itself"

1. identity - "A" is "A"

2. non contradiction - "A" cannot be both "A" and "non-A" in the same time and same respect - we have distinctions between things, if we did not use this law there would be no difference between a watch and a horse.

3. excluded middle - either "a" or "non-a" - it is either a square or non square but if it is a square it cannot be any other thing other than the essence of "A"

----IF WE CANNOT AGREE ON THESE THINGS, WE CANNOT AGREE ON ANYTHING ELSE. THEREFORE IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE THREE LAWS, YOU ARE CONSIDERED IRRATIONAL AND YOU NEED NOT READ FURTHER. Everyone should have no problem accepting these three laws.

"Reason in its use"

1. Reason is formative, it is used to form concepts judgements and arguments which are the forms of all thought

2. Reason is used critically as the test for meaning

3. Reason is used to Interpret experience in light of ones basic belief

4. Reason is used to construct a coherent world and life view

Reason in us

1. Natural - it is universal, there is no chinese reason or american reason, it is the same at these most basic levels. if otherwise we would not be able to share any concepts judgements or arguments with another and have them understand it. it is the case that we can explain to someone a concept even though our languages are different

2. Ontological - Applies to being as well as thought. there are no square circles - in its essence a square cannot be a circle and a circle cannot be a square. you could change the definition but it still applies that you cannot merge the two concepts together. it is impossible and therefore does not exist

3. Transcendental - it is authoritative, you cannot question reason with reason. you cannot question it because it makes questioning possible (remember C,J, and A)

4. Fundamental - it is the source of mans greatest happiness and its disuse is the source of man's deepest misery. because we have to use reason to find meaning at the most basic level, to not use it means we don't have meaning and therefore self destruct.

Once again I would liek to point out that if you do not agree with these basic things, you cannot understand anything else, and there is no point in continuing. however if you are interested and just confused about a few things. pm me and we can chat.

The next question has to be about eternality

eternal is at a more basic level defined as always was, never had beginning and never will end. we need to apply this to the three common view points that separates culture and go from there.

1. nothing is eternal

2. something is eternal

3. all is eternal

you cannot go around this, these statements are more basic than any worldview and NEED to be answered.

1. Contradictory statements cannot be both true and cannot be both false

2. none is eternal's contradiction is "some is eternal"

3. if "none is eternal" then"

a. all is temporal

b. all had a beginning

c. all came into being

4. if all came into being, then being came into existence from non-being

5. being from non being is not possible

6. therefore the original "non is eternal" is not possible.

7. therefore its contradiction "some is eternal" must be true.

Now I don't think that anyone thinks nothing is eternal, the question now is is all eternal or some?

we need to ask if if the material world, the universe in its parts, and the universe as a whole is self maintaining.

If the material world is eternal (MATTER ENERGY AND SO ON..)

then it would be self maintaining.

because all is not self maintaining the material world is not eternal.

in general, the material world is highly differentiated, there is hot and cold, dry and wet, hard and soft, rock and sand. these differences interact iwth eahother. the reaction continues until sameness is reached and will remain the same when left to itself

if the universe in its parts is eternal for example the sun, then the sun would not burn out. the sun is finite in size and so are the stars. and infinite being is not finite. and when left to itself the sun will burn out. the universe in its parts is not eternal

the last part we can get to is is the universe as a whole eternal.

1. not enough mass to pull universe back in on itself meaning it will eventually reach a heat death.

2.even if there was enough mass to pull back in on itself, it would eventually reach sameness meaning force pushing out and force pushing in would reach equilibrium and stop moving.

3. true vaccum (empty of matter and energy) into false vaccum( empty of matter but not energy) is the same as being from non-being which is a contradiction.

necessarily you cannot hold to the universe as eternal and inflationary theories of the big bang.

therefore we realize that since matter and energy are not eternal, the opposite, something must be eternal must be true

since it is not matter or energy, I will call this being - GOD

 

I'm not going to address your iffy science, but:
You make a lot of different mental leaps that i fear aren't warranted.
It was an attempt?
No, god carries a connotation of a mystical, magical being.

 

I know god exists from the time jesus walked the earth z:S

 

Please embellish.

 

this is considered spam

you're arguing my position rather than what i've said.

please next time you make a reply, make it thoughtful rather than just saying something without explanation.

 

It's not spam.

What you've said is your position.

Here you go:

Okay, here's my problem with this. You're assuming that nothing is eternal, and that nothing ever had a beginning. But, I just can't understand as why you believe this. You've no proof of this to be true. That's why I was saying that you were making mental leaps - ones that were far too long to logically deduce.

 

[q]Okay, here's my problem with this. You're assuming that nothing is eternal, and that nothing ever had a beginning. But, I just can't understand as why you believe this. You've no proof of this to be true. That's why I was saying that you were making mental leaps - ones that were far too long to logically deduce.[/q]

Ah I see,

I have to assume either nothing or allto be true to see if it stands with logic. I don't believe nothing is eternal but i assumed it to see how absurd it really is. same with all is eternal

do you understand now?

 

Your most important flaw is in your final sentence.

 

A logical appeal and the thought behind it are two very different things.

One cannot rightfully say that the concept of eternity is fall or stand. This is only because of two factors:

1 - There has never been a reason to assume that eternity is a logical concept, considering nothing has ever shown such an attribute.

2 - There has never been a reason to assume that eternity isn't a logical concept, considering one cannot truly say, as no one has had the rightful time to validate such an appeal.

Records of such has only gone for so long; hardly a fraction of even the human understanding of eternity.

@PublicityFtf, EXCODUS prime

You're both arguing illogical points. Not only that, but you're speaking from both sides of the same coin, as such that it has been flipped, and landed on it's ridges. There shall never be equilibrium in the two clashing arguments, as each side rightfully contains the same amounts of fallacy and logic.

You must think beyond heads or tails if you were to truly understand enough to debate such a fragile topic.

 

Thermodynamics, you need to look into it.

 

I'm with Finn.

And this thread is already a best-seller on the forums. Don't repost it.
The other one has been here for quite a while.

 

uhmmmmm....prove it? i dont see this as proof i see this as just another opinion...NEXT!

 

So basically you're calling God an overpowered ghost....

 

please expound. there is no need to make a comment without justifying it.

Arya: I just want to make sure i'm clear, are you saying that the concept of eternity is both a logical and illogical concept at the same time and same respect.

and if you wouldnt mind, can you please explain to me what you mean by saying you must think behind heads or tails.
thanks man

Amf: what im saying is since matter is not eternal, and since it cannot be the case that nothing is eternal. it has to be something else that is eternal

 

His last sentence assigns a name to a thing/substance... how is this flawed exactly...

 

In the same way as the cosmological argument is flawed. It establishes the existence of something, then simply names the something ''God'', which is flawed. Commonly held is the acceptance that the term God (insofar as its use in this forum, anyway) refers to a theistic God with the virtuous qualities of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc. It is invalid for me to establish the existence of a piece of paper, then declare that it is God.

 

Not quite. I'm only stating that beyond all reasonable doubt, debating the concept of eternity is even above that of debating the existence of a deity. It is, in much respect, logical, all the while being extremely illogical. You and the other debater were debating two difference sides of, essentially, the same coin.

Such is inevitable when you're debating such a concept.

As well, what I meant by thinking beyond heads or tails is that, that is what must happen for one to truly grasp one, or even both, concepts. Without grasping the concept, one cannot truly debate it, or ever expect to win such a debate. [Or, for that matter, lose.]

There can never be a winner, nor a loser, in a debate of eternity, unless one of the debaters as looked beyond heads and tails.

In simpler terms: With the ability to fathom eternity, one would be able to debate it, backed with unlimited logic.

This is known as looking beyond heads and tails.

Since heads and tails are the only two options known by human, and shall ever be, no human can logically debate either side. Such theories makes your debate with the other debater pointless, and illogical all around. No matter what side either of you were debater, you were both on the losing team from the beginning.

 

Thank you for the responce arya, and for claryfing it.

I'm still having trouble grasping what exactly your saying.

If what I think is what you are saying, that you cannot grasp eternality because we ourselves are not eternal; you are correct in some sence. I dont what its like to have always existed, but I do not what it is like to be temporal, and I can put together some kind of idea of what always existing has to be at a basic level. I know that always existing is more basic than being temporal therefor the one who is eternal creates the temporal.

with that is it common or should be thought about by everyone is if everything around me always was, or is also temporal. and if it is temporal, how did it get there? and if it always was there, why am I existing and have not always been.

I disagree with what your saying thats it illogical to debate because we can grasp eternality at some level which is the basic level or always was-never had a beginning- and will never end.

one this I would like to ask you, is do you think you exist, do you think you are eternal or temporal, and do you think the outside world apart from you is eternal or temporal. and why?

 

Alright, let's cut the crap into it's pieces. Here's your argument in it's basic form.

1. The existence of the universe can't be finite.
2. The universe can't be eternal.
3. Therefore God's real.

There's a logical flaw in each one of these premises; I'll take the time to dispute them although it would really only take one flaw to discard the entire argument.

The first argument follows a path of circular logic. In short, you state that existence requires creation and creation requires existence. Although this may seem perfectly logical in your head, you haven't really established grounds for this at all; moreover, it's contradictory to your God theory(ie: What created God?).

The second argument follows from a poor interpretation of the first. You incorrectly establish that the universe can't be finite, and by citing a somewhat twisted version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, attempt to disprove its eternalness. For one, we don't know if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is infinitely applicable. Secondly, you assumed that uneven distribution of materials somehow violate this law, when it doesn't at all.

The final argument is really just basic Argumentum Ad Ignoratum and moving the goal posts.

The more rational stance here is merely to acknowledge we don't know if the universe was created, how it was created, or if time is infinite at all.

 

This can just be safely discussed in the existing thread:

http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=745216