Can you prove that God exists?

Jesus Christ. I am going to make this as clear as I possibly can: POST YOUR PHILOSOPHY SO THAT I MAY CRITIQUE IT! I hope that sinks in this time.

"Your arguments are useless.

Just because you state them does not give validation to them. they fall flat in the face of reality."

So you've said again... and again... and again; but that's not a critique, that's
a statement and has absolutely no value unless you present arguments to back it up. I presented the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and Kierkegaard's argument. Now, you have to tell me what's wrong with those arguments. That's how a debate works. Keep in mind that you cannot just say, "That has no bearing on reality!" or anything else along those lines. You must present an argument with premises and a conclusion. Now, could you please do that so that this thread becomes productive again and so that I can stop repeating myself.

"I am a student of reality. Your words describe nothing but other words. They're valueless."

So you've said, but, you see, that's not an argument. Saying that something is valueless does not make it so, it does not even make it false.

"You've offered no proof of god."

Do I really have to write them again? You should have them memorised by now! Please, critique them!

"You've stated that conciousness is required for existence. Unqualified statements are well and good; but who cares?"

No, I didn't. I stated that consciousness is required to know existence, in your own words, to "verify" it.

 

Your words offer litte self-justifacation, in spite of what you think.

A thing is not so becuase you say it is. Words are a human construct; not to be mistaken for the concepts they try to describe.
-----
An explanation:
"Since beginnings begin endings and endings end beginnings, than naturally the end of the ending is the beginning of the beginning."


Before the beginning, there was chaos.


Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began.



Chaos split in half; on one side was energy, and on the other entropy.



Energy shattered into the forces known to science, an possibly inexplicable others.



Entropy began “gathering toward Chaos” in the form of time/space/gravity and all its attributes.



Thusly was the Universe born.



And though it all, Uncertainty remained supreme.
-----
And these basic priciples stand.

There is a tendency to seek Chaos. There is a weaker tendency to seek order.

This can be seen in all things.

Even homocentricity.

 

Now state your philosophy- a magician on a cloud rules all?

 

Give it up, juicy. I'm tired of this.

your assumption of god remains an assumption.

 

You've got to be kidding me. I wasted an hour of my night trying to coax that out of you? Sleeping would have been more productive! It shouldn't take long to formulate a critique.

First of all, your "philosophy" is not a complete system. There is no serious discussion of metaphysics, no epistemology, no ethics, and no aesthetics. I'm not sure if it could even be considered a philosophy to begin with. All you have is a creation story.


"Before the beginning, there was chaos."

Problem #1: You assume that there was a beginning in the first place. How are you so certain that matter has not always existed?

Problem #2: What did chaos consist of? I'm really just curious as to why you chose the word "chaos" over, say, "void."


"Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began."

Problem #3: If you don't know exactly what happened, then how do you know it happened at all?

"Chaos split in half; on one side was energy, and on the other entropy."

Problem #4: What, exactly, are you basing this upon? What about matter, or idea, or will? How did those things come out of energy and entropy?

Problem #5: What, exactly, is entropy? Can I see it?


"Energy shattered into the forces known to science, and possibly inexplicable others."

Problem #6: What caused energy to shatter?

Problem #7: How can a concrete thing such as energy become an abstract concept such as science? Through what process?


Problem #8: How is science a force?

"Entropy began 'gathering toward Chaos' in the form of time/space/gravity and all its attributes."

Problem #9: I'm no physicist, but isn't gravity a form of energy?


Problem #10: Why are space and time necessarily chaotic?

Problem #11: What force pulled entropy towards chaos if not energy?

"Thusly was the Universe born.


And though it all, Uncertainty remained supreme."

Hallelujah!

"And these basic priciples stand.

There is a tendency to seek Chaos. There is a weaker tendency to seek order.

This can be seen in all things.

Even homocentricity."

Problem #12: How do you know? Have you seen all things?

Problem #13: What is the nature of these tendencies?

Problem #14: Then why don't all things eventually gravitate towards chaos?

Well, that was one of the stupidest things I have ever read and a complete waste of time. All this time I thought you were a strict adherent to the scientific method, but really you just spout some mystical order/chaos distinction. You know absolutely nothing about philosophy.

"Now state your philosophy"

I already told you, I have not developed a system. Do you know why? Because it take years to do such a thing. It took Kant 12 and in the end he still couldn't make it air tight. Some philosophers even intentionally choose not to create a system, such as Nietzsche. Any idiot can just throw a bunch of vague, ill-defined terms together without explaining the relation of those terms and invent a creation story, as you have done. I'll post what I do have so far tomorrow in summary, or maybe the day after (big day tomorrow). I'm too exhausted right now, and I'd hate to make any slip-ups due to fatigue.

Good night.

 

As far as I'm aware, scientists currently believe the universe is infinite, and had no beginning. Not that this really makes any difference to the argument of God's existence. God could just have easily made the universe infinite than to make it finite.

 

On second thought, I am not going to post my philosophy. Hopefully doing philosophy will some day be my sole source of income, so I'm not going to just give it all away for free. I don't mind posting little snippets of it here and there, but I'm not going to post the whole thing.

I will, however, summarize the basic project: To shift postmodernism away from the sociological and political, and towards the introspection of Kierkegaard and St. Augustine.

I will also list my main influences: St. Augustine, the Victorines, John Duns Scotus, Hamann, (latter) Schelling, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marcel, and Derrida.

Anyone who reads these philosophers, keeping in mind my project, will have a good understanding about where my thought is going.

 

Problem #16: If time and space are really just manifestations of entropy, and entropy is, by definition, in a constant state of deterioration, how is it possible to consistently measure time and space? Why don't the measurements fluctuate over time as time and space deteriorate?

 

Hmmm .. I suspect once we can get beyond the solar system and then do some yardsticking , well , things is gonna change . Voyager's almost there . Last I heard it was beyond Pluto and encountering some kind of edge wave . Maybe from just beyond the wave it's really no time at all to get to anywhere except back home again . Are you ready for anything ? Do you have a good enough philosophy
to get you through ? I mean , too , a good philosophy can save you
from going blind should you ever encounter a shiny polished God , or at
least keep one from going to sleep from too much at you too fast too
shiny . Don't even blink .

 

Okey, asanine has one "s", or was that 2'nd "s" deliberate? No, I can't totally and utterly dissprove santa, nore can I prove his existance, so, really,all evidence gathering ever done is moot, not that it shouldn't be done, science makes life more interesting. And I don't know what shall happen in the future, nor can anyone, except Ben Afflek and Gandalph.

 

There are so many problems with this, I'll give someone else a chance.

 

There is no question as to whether God 'still' exists.

God does not share our time, so all points in time in our universe are equal to God. I doubt God exists in any kind of time, but if he does, and he ceases to exist at some point in his future, he will still always exist at every point in time in our own future, since all points in time in our universe were created at one point in time in God's life, when he existed.

To put it another way: you can read a book written by a dead person and at no point in that book will the author cease to exist. He existed while he wrote the book, so within the universe of that book, the author is eternal.

A lot of people confuse God's 'time' (if there is such a thing) with Earth time, which are two completely different things. God did not create the universe in the past!

 

God exists because I believe he does.

 

Meagain:

Yes, close enough. The cosmological argument as well as many of the other proofs for God's existence (including the teleological) cannot be attributed to one, single philosopher. They have been expressed in many different ways by many different philosophers, but your summary is accurate, on the whole.

Well, it could be viewed that way, but really the argument presupposes that God is a natural phenomenon in the same way that, say, gravity is. I think that this is its biggest flaw.

I do not see any difference between saying, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause." The veb "must" is the English modal verb which signifies necessity. It is grouped into the same category as "should" or "ought" or "may"; all of these are modal verbs. However, "must" is the only one of them which signifies necessity. Compare the following sentences:

1) "I go to the store."

2) "I should go to the store."

3) "I may go to the store."

4) "I must go to the store."

Sentence 1 is in the present tense. It is the equivalent of saying, "I am going to the store," meaning that I am, at this moment, going to the store. Sentenses 2 and 3 use modal verbs. Sentence 2 signifies a value judgement, and Sentence 3 signifies possibility. The united factor between the two, however, is that neither of them signify necessity; I do not have to go to the store. Only Sentence 4 signifies necessity.

Necessity, by its very nature, suggests that the event has not yet taken place. If someone says, "I must go to the store," then that person has obviously not left for the store yet. In this way, a modal verb implies the future tense (e.g. "I will go to the store"), meaning that Sentence 4 speaks of a future trip to the store, while Sentence 1, as mentioned before, speaks of the present trip to the store.

Why is this important? If the sentence in question used a definate article ("The event must have a cause"), then it wouldn't be. But your sentence uses a quantifier ("Every event must have a cause"). The quantifier "every" implies that all events, past, present, and future, have a cause. To add the modal verb "must" to the sentence is only redundant, since the future tense is already implied. Therefore, there is no difference whatsoever between the sentences, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause."

As for your argument that chance is not a cause, a cause is simply something that causes something else to happen. If something happens by chance, then chance is, of course, the cause. The real question is, "What is the nature of chance?" Chance is an inexplicable cause. It is a cause without reason. It is spontaineity. But it is still a presupposition to assume that chance itself is without cause.

I seriously question whether chance can cause chance. Isn't that simply redundant? Can one distinguish where chance, the cause, ended and where chance, the effect, began?

I normally don't like using numbers in philosophy since they do not always relate directly to the real world (e.g. Mill's four that does not equal four). Sorites paradox, I believe, is a better example. However, you point still stands. I never suggested that the cosmological argument was air tight. In fact, I even suggested to unbelievers that the "combined weight" of the three arguments may be necessary to be convincing to some.

That is the very nature of the unconditioned; it is self-caused. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed this idea thoroughly.

This too was explained by the triad of German Idealism. The unconditioned is an end unto itself.

It's actually probably older. But don't simply write it off for that reason. Some of the greatest philosophy comes out of the Dark Ages.

 

I had the second argument in mind. The first is known as the argument by design, which, when you get right down to it, is very similar to the cosmological argument.

Since all of your arguments deal with the argument by design, I cannot respond to them. It is of great importance to differentiate between order and purpose. While "order" implies a necessary teleological aim, "purpose" leaves room for either/or choices, not just necessary causes.

First of all, the universe is not a house, and I am not aware of the existence of another one which could be used as an original for this copy. Second, surely some degree of intelligence is needed to make a copy. Third, the idea that this universe is a copy (who or what is doing the copying, you fail to explain) of another seems even more unlikely than the idea of it being the original. Lastly, can you show me a house that isn't built by an intelligent being, let alone a universe?

It all goes back to Hegel equating the unconditioned with the Absolute. You have a keen mind and I am beginning to think you would like Hegel.

See response above.

See response above.

Well, if a house has purpose, and a hammer has purpose, and one runs through the list of everything of which the world consists and finds purpose in all of it, then the entire world, the sum total of its contents, must have purpose. I know for certain that houses and hammers have purpose, and you even said so yourself. So why don't you tell me what does not, with certainty, have purpose? You seem even more critical of induction than I am.

It is simply that existence must be presupposed if we want to know anything about a being - that existence must be the starting point. That goes for everything: God, the self, Napoleon, dreams, etc.

No problem.

 

The reason I say He exists because I believe is this:

When the subject comes about about God, all humans alive today are at a disadvantage. We depend on our 5 senses for material proof he exists. Even if we debate the point from a philosophical or intellectual stance, our understanding in based in materiality. We look for the basis of our proof to be evidenced in what we can perceive with our senses.

The problems with that approach is, #1, God is not, in any way, manifested individually materially in this plane. Sure, everything we see is His creation, but nothing can be identified as being Him. #2, we have more than 5 senses. Our 5 senses are materially perceptible in this 3 dimensional world. Souls and spirits are of higher dimensions, and they are not subject to the rules of the 3d world, but they do have laws they are subject to in higher dimensions.

ESP, telepathy, and all the things we label "paranormal" are of that distinction. "Normal" is a label humans have either ignorantly or arrogantly attached to the limits of our perception in this plane. So the people that have paranormal abilities and perceptions are actually using senses made for the higher dimensions. Most cannot perceive what they do, but obviously it is still just as "real", otherwise we would not be as fascinated with the "paranormal" as we are. And to the ones who can perceive those things, they are just as "real" as something you can see or touch. They leave no room for doubt. But they are not explainable to someone who cannot perceive in the same manner.

So when it comes to things of that nature, that is, things that are not tangible by the 5 senses, objective data is invalid. So then we are left with subjective data, usually understood as being someone's opinion or belief. If you ask me how I know God exists, my belief says "He just does." When it comes to things from a higher dimensional plane, "belief" is the "proof."

There's no other way around it. God is of the highest dimension. There will never be any proof you will find on any dimension which can be perceived within the limits of that dimension. That is where the "faith" part comes in. You either believe or you don't. He will not endeavor to find a way to prove it to you, but will reward you if you take a chance and believe. Actually, chance is the wrong word. There are no chances that God will do as He promised, only 100% guarantees.

That is also the explanation about the "first cause". That terminology is the best a human mind can do, given the circumstances. God is not of temporal time, therefore the word cause becomes null and void. But we cannot understand events without causes, therefore we deal with the explanation of Him as the "first cause".