THERE IS NO "GOD", Ok?

There is No Libertine, OK??

It's all in your mind.

 

Ha!

Ok, I can't prove Libertine exists, but experience has made me "inclined to believe." There is evidence that someone exists, a human being I call Libertine, who has said and done some significant things that may be worthy of attention.

Who knows?

 

So, there you DO believe in Libertine based on your weighing of the the circumstances and make a reasonable assessment?

You are a thinker!

 

You go more into this in a later post that you made. I will add it to my reply and continue below.

Which deals only with closed systems, I know. However, the boundary of the closed system is up to us. If we define the system as "all matter in the universe" then we have a closed system and the 2nd law applies. I recognize that matter and energy can be converted into each other, but it seems that much more matter is converted to energy than vice versa. You have energy leaving the system, but not entering... yadda yadda yadda... Entropy can only increase. But, that isn't what your really driving at, so we'll go on.

There is not a whole lot of scientific evidence for multiverses. It is still largely theoretical.

I think I get what you are saying though. Something, either matter or energy, has always existed in some form. If anything has always existed all, then "everything that exists" (the Cosmos) has always existed. Perfectly logical.

There seems to be a problem though in that if Cosmos means "everything that exists" then the idea is a tautology. If God exists, then he is a part of the "Cosmos" (since the Cosmos includes everything that exists). Therefore, the Cosmos has always existed. If God does not exist, then matter/energy in some form has always existed (since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed "naturally"). Therefore the Cosmos has always existed. There is no condition in which the statement "the Cosmos has always existed" cannot be true. Only in the case where absolutely nothing (neither matter/energy or God) existed can the statement be false. However, if truly nothing existed in the past, then nothing can exist now (since matter/energy cannot be created "naturally" from nothing and there would be no God create it "supernaturally"). So it is a tautology. The definition of Cosmos as "everything that exists" means that the statement "the Cosmos exists" is always true. Since there is no time in which the statement "the Cosmos exists" is not true, then the statement "the Cosmos always exists" and "the Cosmos has always existed" are both necessarily true.

So I can't disagree with you.

Of course, I could have completely misunderstood what you were saying. If so, could you clarify?

And what qualifies as "evidence"? I think that we would both agree that "scientific" studies would qualify, but science is limited to the observable universe. Science cannot provide evidence that logic exists or is valid. Science cannot validate itself, either (you cannot use science to prove the validity of the scientific method). And before we throw too much weight into science, let us not forget the lesson of phlogiston.

It seems reasonable, then, to allow other forms of evidence then. Logical proofs seem reasonable. But why discount human experience? What makes it inherently unreliable as a method for discovering truth?

By the way, even if you see no "need" for God as an explanation for existence, it in no way indicates that God does not exist. I know that this is not a strong argument, but it is important to note that the rule of parsimony is a deductive fallacy. Furthermore, the "where did God come from" line of questioning with a believer is just as fruitless as pursuing the "where did matter/engergy come from" with you. The answer is the same. "By it's/His very nature, it/He has always existed."

This should be another thread. I think that I will respond to this in a new one in a little bit.

From another post:

If it isn't too much trouble, I would like to know how. A link to the arguments would be great, if you have one.

Have you ever run into "libertarian free will"? It's a concept that I think you would like and it shows that the "free will or determinism" proposition to be a false dilemma.

That is what I would ask you. As you say that the concepts of omni-max concepts are contradictory, your definitions are far more important than mine.

For a non-physical being, this seems kind of misplaced. What is the problem with a non-physical being existing everywhere?

Foreknowledge doesn't have a causal element to it. I am fairly certain that gravity exists. If I drop my pen right now, I can bet my life that it will fall. Barring a reversal of the fundamental laws of the universe, the pen will fall. I knew with certainty that it would fall. Now, you could argue the technicalities of my certainty, but, in reality, we would both completely expect it to fall. In fact, it would be a matter of great concern for both of us if it did not fall. Now, when I drop it, do I make it fall? Did I assert any sort of power or force to make it drop? I foreknew the events to come, but I didn't cause it.
Along the same lines, I know that in ten seconds, it will be ten seconds from now. Barring time stopping for all eternity or going backwards, or some other bizzarre event which defies all scientific knowledge and human experience, it will occur. There is nothing that I can do to cause it, and nothing I can do to stop it. There is no causal element in simple foreknowledge.
Furthermore, you have God's middle knowledge. He knows not only what will happen, but everything that might have happened.
So, what is the problem with foreknowlede? It doesn't mean that it must happen that way, simply that it will. If it must happen that way, then choices, decisions, heck, even thoughts are not ours nor can we be held responsible for them. However, there is nothing specifically wrong with God knowing what we will do before we do it. Nor does it remove our culpability for our actions.

Do you deny the possibility of a morally sufficient cause for allowing people to choose to go to Hell? Are you certain that the majority of people will go to Hell? What makes you so sure? How do you know?

That you brought up those four makes it seem like you really have a problem with the argument from the existence of evil.

How about we take moral allegories as moral allegories and literal truth as literal truth? We can debate what is what, but if something claims to be literal truth, then we should treat it as such when we evaluate it. If it reads as allegory, then we should treat it as allegory when we evaluate it. Does that sound fair?

 

I think you got the gist of it. More than I can say for the majority of people here. YOU actually think!

Mostly because we are discussing the existence of something "objective" and human experience is "subjective". Human experiences differ and sometimes contradict each other, thus they are not a reliable source of evidence for "objective" validity.

Only problem is that this could be used for anything unproven and subjective with no good ground for reasoning other than the subjective "experience".

Ok, think about this one. A "being" is something that exists. As a matter of fact, it could be synonymous. We consider "beings" to occupy a place somewhere in some space. As we determine with evidence that matter/energy exists (we have no evidence of anything else), we would make a logic conclusion that this "being", this "substance" existed in some place. However, a non-physical or unsubstantial "substance" is a contradiction. Thus, logically impossible.

This is where we disagree. You "anticipate" because of prior experience and prior knowledge. But, "God" KNOWS. And if "God" (all-knowing) KNOWS (not guesses or anticipates, but KNOWS) ALL future events, then it MUST happen the EXACT way he KNOWS it will happen, thus violating the entire purpose of human dilemma. So, if you "change your mind" 1,000 times, "God" still KNOWS the outcome. I would ask again, "Are we pawns in a celestial game of chess?"

First, I see no evidence of a "hell". Secondly, I look at the overall picture. WHO created "hell" (if it exists)? The book of Isaiah makes it clear WHO created "hell" and "evil". It was the Grand Chessmaster. If "God" was all-powerful and all-good, surely he could come up a much better idea than a medieval philosophy of eternal torture. I could, and I am not even all-powerful or all-good. Also, if "God" is all-knowing, then "he" already knows what the future holds including who will go to "hell". Again, the chess game?

Yes I do. However, I don't believe in "good" or "evil", per se, I believe in "benefit" or "harm". Call it "good" and "evil" if you want, but I choose not to use those terms as they equate more to religious connotations stemmed from emotions and tradition rather than the psychological and social aspect. I see NO reason for a "God" to exist in order for people to be ethical and respectful to each other. I see that as common sense through experience and rationale.

 

'I see NO reason for a "God" to exist in order for people to be ethical and respectful to each other. I see that as common sense through experience and rationale.' Libertine
You do realize that Isaac Asimov was of the same opinion. He is nice to people in the pursuit of a better society, not in the hopes for a reward after he dies.
Is it of any consequence whether or not you believe in God? Does it matter to you if I do? If I did I wouldn't care if others told me not to. In the end, what does it matter? I am content and accepting of your ability to choose for your self. And I support the view that you have made that right choice, and it is the truth, it is valid, and it is likely different than mine. But am I then doomed to be wrong? I feel you speak the truth, your views are valid, it is your reality. Mine is different, and my truths are different. What do you think? Does someone have to be wrong, and who am I to judge what reality is like through your eyes?

 

Why does it matter?

At least for the sake of debate and the free market of ideas.

If anything it is informative and entertaining to debate and play the game of logic.

 

It is not as fun for me as it once was. I guess those reasons are good enough for some people, but they are not of any great import to me. I don't really care what others believe, and I don't need to tell them to change, why should they? The game of logic is only so productive, and when it crosses into theoretical concepts that I have a hard time relating to reality, I do not see any use in them. It is mental mastur...something I forget, Sammy Hagar said it. Philosophy has some value, but my view is that value is blown way out of proportion, and most of it is just gobbledygook. Lots of sizzle and no meat. All show no go. Alot of big words, and logical theorems, that have little if any bearing on the common man's day to day life. If God is real, I bet whether that is believed is not something he's worried about. And if the devil is real......he can go to hell. I know a prof at a univversity who has hsi doctorate in philosophy. He's a smart guy, but his diploma isn't why. There are few correlations between intelligence and education. Money and education is a better match.

 

If you find it boring...

Why do you continue to do it, then?

I'd rather have meaningful dialogue with other people than be lazy and apathetic.

(not that you are, but too many people today are too goddamn apathetic)

And apathy NEVER ACCOMPLISHED A FUCKING THING.

 

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large. I contain multitudes.)" Walt Whitman
It is in one of these 'does God exist' threads... why indeed.
Sucker for punishment?
I actually do enjoy it, and I just don't know it? That is probably it.
I guess the change from before is I don't get bent out of shape if I am told I'm wrong, or full of it, or stupid, or a liar, etc. I may make a sharp reply, but I assure you, I am not at all affected by it. I don't get 'into it' like before. I realized that such personal attacks are more reflective on the attacker, and really have little to do with me. Saying it doesn't make it so, most of the time.... I'll keep telling myself that.
Walt Whitman had a good reply above.

edit: I'd rather have meaningful dialogue with other people than be lazy and apathetic. Libertine

Well I'd say that is close to the reason, meaningful is where I sometimes have a different view.
Lazy and apathetic? I think we all occasionally need to be. If some rare cases don't, they are just that, rare.
I have worked full time all my life, spent years going to school at night, climbed mountains, hiked my butt off, as much as 9 days long. And spent hours online posting stuff that is of questionable value to anyone. But, I feel like I'm lazy and apathetic. Maybe it's wishful thinking.
John Lennon said time wasted on purpose is not time wasted.
I like that. It is a relief to occasionally not care, and just vegitate, tv's good for that. I agree that people are lazy, I think people are also stupid, and all liars, and if not apathetic, generally care about the wrong stuff. I include myself, being a person and all. If some exceptions exist (Mother Teresa) refer to the apathetic point.... like Kurt Cobain put so poetically, oh well, whatever, nevermind.
I used to go hiking as my relaxation, which I found is pretty strenous relaxation.

 

...

 

IDIOT, GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE IF YOU DO NOT LIKE GOD.

 

Lol.

How can he dislike something that he doesn't think exists?

Idiot.

Now run along and bury your head in the sand again.

 

I read all the absolutes Libertine listed. Most I either agree with or don't know. I think angels are part of my reality. I have had alot of things happen that have led me to conclude that Guardian Angels, Spirit Guides, Soul Family, etc. are discretely supervising me, and occasionally nudging me out of harm's way when, usually, my own stupidity got me into an easily fatal situation. I could just be real lucky though. Also, I have reason to believe prayer has power. I have two prayers, 'thank you', and 'thy will be done', nothing else seems worth praying for. Call me superstitious if you want, but I believe in miracles, and the afterlife too. These could be misleading terms, though, since I am open to the idea that these are all natural things, which will someday be figured out by science. Not soon though, the way scientists are acting now.

 

I try. Thanks for the compliment.

Should that really disqualify human experience? While human experience is subjective, it can and does report "objective" reality accurately. We count on this every day. When people tell us what they have seen and heard, we generally believe what they are saying. I am not endorsing that you admit that just because someone "feels" God that God must exist, but I question why human experience is wholesale rejected. Could we classify experiences as "objective" and "subjective"? Maybe "internal" and "external"? I am sure that you would reject some internal feeling that God exists (or any number of "experiences" that one might have that are emotional/psychological in nature). However, if a scientist runs some tests and then reports the results of his experiment and what he thinks that means (which is a report of his experiences and his opinion of his experiences), you would give him credit without dismissing it of hand. I guess the question is whether human experience can experience and accurately report objective reality. What do you think?

Well, not exactly. I wasn't using the argument to support the idea of God, but to mention that parsimony shouldn't be used as a cap to a deductive argument. It is inductive argument at best and is not the best inductive argument at that.

Sorry, Lib. Have to disagree. All beings must exist, but not all things that exist are beings. The terms, therefore, are not synonomous.

The deduction requires that there all things that exist must be physical. Of course, if all things that exist must be physical then to be non-physical and exist is contradictory. However, saying that we only have evidence that matter/energy exists brings back in the concept of "evidence" again which we haven't finished discussing. I would also point out that you believe in energy. Energy is, by definition, the capacity for work. Energy is completely non-physical. You cannot directly experience or even directly measure "energy." You must calculate it based on theories, laws and mathematical formulae. We can experience the forms of energy (electricity, radiation, heat, light, etc.) but these are all fundamentally interactions between matter. Energy is non-physical and takes up no space (since, if it did, it would be, by definition, matter). So, can non-physical non-spacial "stuff" exist?

But how does knowledge equate to being a causal factor? Can you provide a deductive argument where foreknowledge eliminates the possibility of choice. Furthermore, how is this illogical?

And no, we are not pawns in a celestial game of chess.

Depends on what Hell is, doesn't it?

Is it possible that your concept of Hell is not accurate? I would be more than willing to admit that I think Hell exists, but that the vast majority of people have the wrong idea as to what Hell is (Biblically, anyway). I think that the "medieval philosophy of eternal torture" is largely off base.

"Benefit" and "harm" are just as loaded as "good" and "evil." What is "benefit"; what is "harm"?

And I don't see any real reason for people (or, more specifically, societies) to be ethical and respectful to each other without God. Look at ancient societies like Rome and Greece. They were great to their own citizens, but did great violence to those outside the society. And they took and kept slaves. Since the society could live in harmony with itself and having slaves and land were beneficial to their own citizens, they pillaged and conquered and plundered. Are you willing to say that this was completely ethical? Why should I care about the world at large? If me and mine can enslave and take you and yours, why should I not? And what if I don't care about survival or living in peace with others?

 

You're welcome.

My point is this: That any experience one has is, of course, relative to the person experiencing it. Even a near-death experience has most Christians seeing Jesus, but other religious folk who have had them experienced something quite different--not Jesus.
I think it is extremely rational to see it as the "vision" or "experience" coming straight from the preconceived notions of their conditioning and/or belief. In other words, it's psychological not "spiritual/mystical". It is an experience which cannot be a criteria used for the objective.
Why? Simply because hundreds of human "experiences" and "visions" and "revelations" point blank contradict others. Thus, they cannot be depended upon as criteria for which to judge objective truth.

Ahh...ok. It is still extremely sketchy and, I think, unreliable to use such a subjective experience as evidence for the objective. That's why I dismiss it. You say "God told me that everyone should smile all the time because he made life and it is good." Someone else comes along and contradicts this...but "God" told them too. See my point?

I was not necessarily using the term "beings" as in "animated objects" only, but anything that exists as "being". Sorry, I didn't clarify.

I don't think energy is "non-physical" at all. I think Einstein proved this. Also, energy occupies space. Everything that exists objectively (not "love" which is subjective) is material in some form all the way down to the subatomic particles. I see no reason to see it otherwise. Thus, I cannot see how an "unsubstantial" substance could exist at all. There is no evidence for the "transcendent" of the physical world, thus I could not accept it as an attribute of a being called "god".

I am not saying that the knowledge itself CAUSED anything. What I am saying is that to KNOW something with 100% surety is much different than anticipating with 99.9% confidence. If "God" KNOWS something is going to happen and knows EVERYTHING. Then, he would KNOW the outcome and all the steps it took to get there. The KNOWING doesn't CAUSE the event, but the event MUST happen if it is KNOWN. It would be as if it already happened to an omniscient being--"outside of time".

What do you mean by "loaded"? Benefit and harm is practical. "Good" and "Evil" are otherworldly. I mean it is reasonable to use both synonymously, sure...but I just see it in terms of what is beneficial or harmful, and that way it is much easier to see how people don't need any "god" in order to be ethical.

Well, we disagree BIG TIME here. I don't think you need an invisible sky man in order to be ethical and respectful to others. Violence exists today even with your claim that "God" exists. I think that is a cop-out, really. I am using the practicality (a universal practicality) that we do not need "supernatural" forces in order to learn from experience and reason that it is in the best interest of humans to treat each other with respect. I suppose we will continue to disagree here, but I really see it as perfectly logical--much more than a "God" (unproven) who is "transcendent" (unproven) and "supernatural" (unproven) "creating" (unproven) all this. It makes more sense that nature begets nature, we learn, we progress and the CYCLE continues on.

 

I agree with what you are getting at. When people come to me talking about having visions or hearing angels, etc. I am very skeptical. I am very skeptical of human experience when dealing with subjective experiences. However, when reporting what they have seen and heard in the "real" world, I hope you would agree that people can report the truth about objective reality. A scientist can truthfully convey the observed results of his experiments. A witness can truthfully convey the identity of a mugger. A scout can truthfully convey the location of an enemy camp. These things are directly related to human experience.

I am driving this home because I do not think that we can dismiss all human experience as evidence solely on the grounds that it is human experience. If you want to dismiss "mystical" and "psychological" experiences, you will not get an argument from me. Dismissing a report of what someone saw simply because it is neither a rational proof nor a "repeatable" (whatever that means) experiment seems to be over-reaching. It would, in fact, eliminate almost all criminal and civil court proceedings (which are based largely on affidavits and personal testimony) and would unravel most law in the western world.

Do you see my point? I am trying to draw out the subtle difference between "revelation" and objective experience.

I definitely see your point. In fact, I largely agree with it. I too dismiss most (if not all) "supernatural" experiences as evidence for God. I believe that people experienced something, and I do not rule out the supernatural, but I do not allow that experience to be used as "proof." If I did, that would be a circular argument. I believe in God because of the supernatural experience; I believe the experience was supernatural because I believe in God.

No problem. I gotcha.

But I am not sure that you can make that assertion. Magnetic fields exist, yet pass through (almost) all matter. They have no mass and take up no space. They can exert force, but do so without any exchange of mass or matter. To date, we know of no "magnetron" which is the conveyor of magnetic force. The same is true of gravity (gravity fields also pass through matter). Though there are some theories (the unified field theory) which predict the existence of the "graviton", there has been no discovery of such a particle. Without further proof, to say that gravity has a material aspect (it has mass and takes up space) is more of an assertion based on faith than scientific validity.

I do recognize that there is a huge difference between arguing that immaterial forces exist and can affect the material world and saying that there is a conscious being that is immaterial that also exists and can affect the world. Right now I am just laying the groundwork for the idea that we accept (possibly a priori) that non-physical "stuff" can and does exist in our material world.

I am not arguing trancendency of the non-physical at all (yet ). All I am arguing is the existence of the non-physical which we have concluded must exist even though it has no mass, takes up no space and is completely immaterial.

To say that something must happen in a certain way has the sense of fatalism or determinism. "Must" has the element of compulsion. It is this compulsion that I have a problem with.

Perhaps you mean by "must" that there is absolute certainty (and you are not employing the "compelling" aspect of the word). If so, then I fail to see an issue. If God knows that an event happened then it will happen. If I know that an even happened, then it happened. Such statements are self-evidently true (until will start arguing what is means to "know" something ).

How is this an illogical aspect of God? I feel what you are getting at, but I am missing something.

They are loaded in the sense that do we really know what is beneficial and what is harmful? What is it to do harm? For example, cutting off someone's arm without anesthetic is certainly harmful (at the very least, there is physical and psychological trauma). However, if a doctor does it to save a patient from bleeding to death, has he conferred a benefit or a harm? What if a doctor allows his terminally ill patient to die and the next day, a cure for the disease is released?

Benefit and harm are loaded because they are so open to interpretation. Furthermore, they are both dependent upon the consequences of the actions. But, because consequences spread through time, like a ripple in a still pond, they are never set. We cannot know if we have really conferred a benefit or a harm because we cannot know what would have happened.

Example:
Let's say we send a rapist to prison. He is also a scientist/doctor. They day he leaves for prison for the rest of his life is the day he would have discovered a cure for all diseases everywhere had he not been incarcerated. Did we confer a benefit or a harm?

Example:
Nietsche presented many good arguments for his ideas. Philosophers were challenged and their ideas tested. Human understanding and knowledge was increased. However, some of these ideas helped form the worldview of a young german that went on to order the deaths of millions. Had Nietsche never written, it is possible that millions might have not died horrible deaths. So, did Nietsche's ideas confer a benefit or a harm?

These examples also speak to another "issue" with benefit and harm (and follows "good" and "evil" too, or any moral concept with a relativistic backdrop). Whose benefit are we talking about? Whose harm? Is it moral to do great violence against a few in order to prevent a lesser violence against the many? What about doing violence against the few for the pleasure of the many? How do you measure "benefit" and "harm"?

And that's okay, so long as we can be civil, yes?

I cannot disagree with either of these statements. However, without God, I do not see a motivation to be either eithical or respectful. I get the feeling like you will say, self-preservation is our primary (and at least, instictual) motivation. What if self-preservation is not my priority? What if I have a death wish? What if self-preservation demands that I be unethical and unrespectful (like a starving man stealing or even killing in order to eat)?

I might be able to forward an argument that nothing we do could be considered ethical or respectful, but that is not the gist of your post. My primary question isn't whether we can be ethical and respectful to each other without God. My question is "why should I be"?

It is logical. But I didn't intend to argue that without God we would be unethical. I was simply saying that without God, we would have no real reason to be ethical. We might be ethical on a day to day basis because it is practical on some level, but even then, you have to deal with situations where it is impractical to be ethical.

And we have come full cycle.

Back to the issues of proof!

 

Well if you are disgusted with us, you must be really disgusted with Jesus, for Jesus states. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be the members of his household." Whenever you speak God's truth, the world will hate you. They hated Christ, they hated his stories, they hated His laws, and they hated His prophecies. Anyone who tells the world they must give their life to Christ to be saved, will not be imbraced by this world. And this is why Jesus has stated, He did not come to bring peace. We are here to speak the truth, and it is His truth, this world hates.

 

Jesus also said
"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven."
"Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity'" matthew 7:21-23
God is love, the will of God is that we embody kindness love and compassion.

If im disgusted with the way you represent Jesus i should also be disgusted with Jesus? That doesnt make much sense does it?
I dont exactly know what to think of that quote, since i havent read all of matthew to get a feel for how jesus is portrayed.

 

libertine come to work with me