I'm glad you liked my post. As the only things that you and I currently comprehend are degrees of truth (unless you're enlightened, of course). Truth (or Knowledge) is achieved in a balance between reason and faith, that A is A, and B is B, yet whether or not A is really A or not.

Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it. - Buddha

I don't think I've violated the credo of this website, Jeffrick, as I would argue that God's omnipresence (as described by most religions) is enough to qualify him as at least equivalent to all things. If you take the word literally as "present with", then if not the same thing as, what is the distance between God and X as described by omnipresent in any religion that accepts him as such? Furthermore, this is inconsequential for if you give any definition at all to "God", then it is something which exists. As, I am sure you will agree with me, the only thing which does not exist is that which does not exist - hence, it has no definition, and there is no way of ever describing it - it's simply a nonfactor.

Horrible logic (or lack thereof.) Defining God as "everything" is simply mental gymnastics. Yes the universe exists. Get over it. There are plenty of things that can defined that don't exist - a square circle or married bachelor can be understood but can't exist. And things which have a definition that don't exist: Elves, vampires, dragons, unicorns, basilisks, centaurs, werewolves, psychics, etc. Add every fictional character ever created.

Oi. Yet another fellow comes to these forums, sits down, unzips his fly, and pulls out his brain for a public wank.

Defining something does not bring it into reality. So there is no p!=p in saying "there is no god" since no claim of the existence of the concept or definition is made in contrast to the negative claim.

As far as "god" referring to everything... Anyone can play the semantics game. I can claim "god" refers only to the collection of quanta that makes up the whole cosmos. That doesn't make me believe in a supernatural being, which you well know is what the word is meant to represent.

I can't wait to see what sort of mental pretzel you twist yourself into to support your claim that atheists have dropped "one belief too many".

This line of reasoning is quite hard to read, comprehend, or deem worthy of the term "reasoning." I would suggest reading Richard Dawkins' God Delusion that specifically goes over this point(and refutes it). You are describing the ontological argument. The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

Reitiration of Mattshizzle:

David Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational argument by arguing as follows:^[14]

1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction; for example, I am a married bachelor.
2. The resultant contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3. It is impossible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God

These mental semantics are not going to go anywhere, I would say the vast majority here think God does not exist. True, you cannot prove God's nonexistence just as you cannot prove or disprove Bertrand Russel's flying teapot orbiting the earth. There is no evidence for either and there is no proof that can be made that definitely proves or disproves the existence of God. With the lack of evidence withstanding most here therefore reason God does not exist. Speaking for myself, if God did show proof of his existence that was verifiable, observable(by recording equipment and many different people), and withstood the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" then I would become a believer. To not do so in the face of insurmountable evidence would be unreasonable. The problem is that the God evidence has not shown up and much of what is and was believed to be attributed to him has since become understood through science through a constant demystification of the supposedly supernatural.

Yes, you have. You assume that no "supernatural being" exists anywhere within MEST. As to the highest truth part, I was only referring to scope of knowledge we have. IE, the knowledge alone that one atom in body exists is has a more narrow scope of knowledge than "my body exists", which I would term a higher truth. Stay posted to hear more.

"I don't believe in a supernatural being" is different from saying "I believe there is no supernatural being". It's a fine but important point.

EDIT: Wait... MEST? Matter, Energy, Space and Time? Are you a Scientologist?

Time to sleep. Good night.

If God came down and regrew an arm of an amputee instantaneously and it could be documented and witnessed and not come up with a scientific explanation for the regeneration, I would say that would be supernatural(outside the realm of our natural laws). If he could be all places at all times, do anything he wanted like defying physics through stopping time, flying, levitating, tell me the future and I could prove all those things, then that would be compelling evidence.

If incredibly advanced alien civilizations came down and regrew an amputee's leg with technologically superior medicine I would not say that was supernatural.

Jillswift. Is this guy a scientologist? I don't know any scientologist, I've heard of T.Cruise and a few others, but all I know about it is that it was INVENTED by a SCIENCE-FICTION writer. Which tells me it is likely flakier then most other religions. I have to tune up my B.S. detector for the un-known.

Eep! Hold still! You have a body thetan on your arm...

*swat*

Got it!

Is Theism just a competition to see who can sound like the bigger idiot?

I'm thinking this dude was drunk or high.

Incorrect, hot and cold refer to the exact same linear measure. It is the sensory perception of heat and coldness which gives the illusion that they are different things, they are in fact, simply different quantities of heat, or vice versa different degrees of cold.

Heat is in essence the height or degree of energy of a system, if it's fundamentally active, it's hot, if its fundamentally sluggish it's cold. That's all heat is, that's all cold is. Duality does not exist, what you refer to as duality is a perceptual differentiator, it is, in a certain frame of reference, a tool of consciousness, and duality is, ultimately, an illusion in all respects. An illusion, without which there would be no objects, no reality and no universe of discourse. We, this, everything, would be a homogenous clump of quantified potential.

You may have picked a better example. I am unaware that Locke's Second order qualities, such as hot and cold, could be considered in duality. The idea is ludicrous. There is no hot/cold "duality" and "hot" is not the opposite of "cold". "Hot" and "cold" are merely words which describe an underlying concept, that of particle kinetics. Same with "light" and "dark" (rod stimulation via photons) or "messy" and "neat" (spatial organization) or "sharp" and "blunt" (the force that can be applied over a certain area) etc. Now, in addition to that, I am unaware that what you have outlined actually constitutes an argument you have moved from the statement "there is duality in the world" (which I have shown false) to "it is problematic to evaluate a God via reasoned means". I don't see any connection between the premise and the conclusion, unless you can elaborate.

There is a difference between circular reasoning and tautology. Tautologies are necessary truths, not derived from anything, they do not need to be proven as they are defended by retortion. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have shot yourself in the foot by starting with "the claim p=p can be proven without circular means is false" and gone to "everything is actually true". In addition to this being a non sequitur, it is unclear what the conclusion even means? Do you mean that all semantically literal, possible utterances are true? By the way, you've used the wrong axiom. A=A is Identity. The disjunction P&¬P is non-contradiction. Let me rephrase. You've moved from:

P&¬P cannot be proven

to

All possible utterances are true, since there is no need for non-contradiction

Now, again, you've shot yourself in the foot by attempting to undermine a tautology, and then construct a logical argument which relies on said tautology. In addition, again, even if the disjunction was circular as opposed to being a true tautology, it is still a non sequitur to move from that to "all possible utterances are true". That would be tantamount to saying that the disjunction is false. Even if the disjunction were circular, there is no way to move from that to "the disjunction is false".

Returning to my point about you shooting yourself in the foot, I'm going to try and identify how many times you've used the disjunction which you've atttempted to undermine in the conclusion you drew from attempting to undermine the disjunction:

If you state "all possible utterances are true", this statement requires you to accept the Law of non-contradiction hereafter referred to as LNC. Firstly, even if the statement "The LNC is true" is circular, so to is the opposite which is needed to draw your conclusion, that "LNC is false". "Truth" and "falsity" are concepts which are held so because they are opposites. If a claim is true, it cannot be false, and vice-versa, according to LNC. So, if I say "LNC is false", I've shot myself in the foot. If the LNC is false, the LNC cannot be false. It might be true and false at the same time, although it is unclear what conclusions you would draw from that. Anyway, it would be equally preposterous to draw the conclusion "all possible utterances are true" for precisely the same reason. They might be false. Or both.

Obviously this is a flawed argument because we are under absolutely no obligation to accept your premise that "anything at all exists". Watch:

P1: Anything at all exists

P2: Atheists say that this thing that some people call "God" does not exist

P3: By (P1) This thing called God exists which does not exist if we accept P2

P4: By the axiom of identity (A=A), that which does not exist, does not exist

C: God exists

It's fantastic except you appear to have conjured up your premise from thin air. It would be the same if I reworded it:

P1: God exists

P2: Atheists say that this thing that some people call "God" does not exist

P3: By the axiom of identity (A=A), that which does not exist, does not exist, and that which exists, exists

C: God exists

What do you notice about P1 and C?

Depends who you ask. If your sipping tea with Baruch de Spinoza, then sure it does. If you're trying to have a discussion with a Christian, then no it does not. The theistic God as the term is commonly employed refers to an external, extrinsic being who created the universe and is both the antecedant to the physical world and not of the same substance. That is to say, classical theists accept two ontological categories. The first is the physical and material that constitute our world. THe second is the "non-material" that constitutes God, and is the antecedant to our physical world and created it ex nihilo and QED, such a being is considered seperate from our physical world, not of the same ontological category. Never mind the fact that the notion of "antecedant" requires concepts like "time" and "space" and that "non-material" is merely a negation of the description of the first ontological category or that ex nihilo is absurd. That is for another debate. Anyway, that's what classical theists believe. Hey, I didn't make it up, OK? They did!

No... there is a concept of a god which doesn't appear to be represented in reality. Conversely, I have the concept of a soda can being in front of me. I got this concept from looking at it; and this concept is reinforced by previous experience with similar things, and the supporting data of other people who seem to act as if there is some idea, a soda can, which is strongly shared conceptually and in the appearance of reality. There is a limited and consistent idea of what this is, and entire industries can rise or fall if there is, in fact, no such thing as a can of soda. But because of an understanding I share with others, and previous experience, my concept of a soda can is continually reinforced by experience; that is to say the incoming data fits my parameters. Because it is well defined, I also know what is not a soda can. By the definition of the soda can, I know, for instance, that Hillary Clinton is not a soda can.

So you're really committing reification; saying that anything that can be a concept must be an object. To even call a god a concept is being charitable to gods or abusive to concepts.

Another way of putting it would be the existence of a god and the non-existence of a god are completely indifferentiable circumstances.

It's going to be crappy and I'm disinterested in hearing about it.