Proof that God exists
Offline While debating on YouTube a guy told me he had proof that God exists. I was intrigued and he seemed like a decent fellow so I asked for his proof. This is what I was sent. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s views.
“The most fundamentally important thing to understand about God is that God is a human construct. It is a label that we have assigned to something. Before there were humans to conceive of God, all there was in the Universe was all there was in the Universe.
"God" is a variable. What I mean by that is that it means exactly what the person using the word wants it to mean. When a Christian refers to God, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by their Bible and their imagination. When a Muslim refers to Allah, they are referring to an entity that has been defined by the Quran and their imagination. But, when a scientist refers to God, they are not referring to either definition, are they? They have their own ideas about who and what God is. And, so do atheists.
But, what is so often missing in discussions about God is the particular definition to which they are referring. When an atheist says, "God cannot possibly exist," to exactly WHAT are they referring that they would claim does not exist? So, even an atheist MUST DEFINE GOD, before they can make ANY meaningful comments or assertions about God. And, if they have not defined God, how can they claim God does not exist? They can't! So, their position can be summarily dismissed - as easily as they dismiss the God they have not defined. This renders active atheism (the idea that God does not exist) to be fallacious, in that it is a position that cannot be proven. It's untenable.
Of course, the concept of God rubs both ways - neither those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God can possibly fully conceive of anything that is worthy of the title, "God." The best that any of us can do is attempt to discern what characteristics such a being must have in order to be Creator of the Universe and define God in accordance with that.
But, fundamentally, it can be agreed by virtually all that God is defined as Creator of the Universe. Fair enough? So, if that is our definition of God, then the existence of the Universe MUST NECESSARILY be evidence of such a Creator. After all, without the Creation, why bother considering who/what Created it? And, if the Creation exists, then it must have been Created - by something. We can simply choose to call that God.
And, if we leave our definition at that, as God is Creator of the Universe, we technically have no burden of proof -- it's an axiom, a self-evident truth, and certainly not an extraordinary claim. Where the burden of proof comes in is when we start making unprovable assertions about God, Creator of the Universe. That is what Christians and other God worshippers have done. They have arbitrarily assigned unprovable and nonsensical characteristics to the Creator of the Universe, thus rendering the entity to which they refer as "God" non-existent. But, that in no way invalidates the existence of a God that has created, or is creating the Universe. It just invalidates their definition of God.
For the purposes of establishing a workable definition of God, we must first familiarize ourselves with some integral terms and their definitions and conditions that ensure that the God we define is worthy of the title, "God."
So, what sort of characteristics must an entity have in order to qualify for the title of "God?"
First, and foremost, any entity qualified for the title of "God" must be provably able to Create the Universe. Anything less would, at most, make such an entity only one of possibly many gods. So, what qualities must an entity have in order for it to be able to Create the Universe?
Such a being must be:
Omnipotent - that is to say, God must be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.
Omniscient - that is to say, God must contain sufficient knowledge to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.
Omnipresent - that is to say, God must be able to be present at all places and at all times to be able to do anything and everything attendant to the task of Creating the Universe in all of its most intricate detail.
These are the bare minimum requirements for any entity that we might ever choose to label as "God." If the being lacks omnipotence, it will be unable to Create the Universe. If it lacks omniscience, it will be unable to Create the Universe. And, if it lacks omnipresence, it will be unable to Create the Universe.
This seems like a tall order, until we realize that the Universe IS being Created - so, we can KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something meets the criteria we just listed - otherwise, we would not be here to contemplate the question. This entity may possess other characteristics about which we may have no knowledge; but, it absolutely will possess these three characteristics.
Now, let's review some standard definitions of words that will be integral to the process of proving God's existence, shall we? (source: www.dictionary.com)
knowl·edge -
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
om·nis·cient -
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.
omniscience
noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
omnipotent -
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.
omnipresent -
--adjective present everywhere at the same time: the omnipresent God.
It should be noted that, included within the definitions of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is a direct reference to God - indicating general consensus on the characteristics we have ascribed to God. We're not just making up God as we go along and just for ourselves. These characteristics really are the bare minimum requirements for God.
Interestingly enough, the bare minimum requirements for God also point us to exactly who and what God really is. Let's analyze this by looking at one of the characteristics, shall we?
Omnipresent -
In order for God to be omnipresent, God must be at all places and at all times. This would necessarily include the actual space and time occupied by everything in the Universe - and, the space between everything in the Universe. This tells us, quite clearly, that God IS the Universe and that everything in the Universe is representative of Parts of God, in Partnership with God in the Creation of the Universe. In the instant that anything extant or non-extant (space) in the Universe is not God, God ceases to be omnipresent - and, ceases to be God. Because, omnipresence is a requirement for God, remember?
But, how can God be space? How can God be something that isn't? Well, you are mostly made up of space, aren't you? There is far more space between the subatomic particles in the atoms that make up your body than the space they actually occupy - by an enormous margin. Actual matter represents a minuscule portion of the Universe. But, still, the existence of the Universe depends on the space that holds things Here and There. Therefore, the existence of God depends on space, too.
Omnipotence also carries the same implication - the only way you can do anything and everything there is to do attendant to the Creation of the Universe is to BE the Universe and all the processes involved in its Creation. In the instant that anything in the Universe that is not God does anything, God is rendered non-omnipotent - and, therefore, not God. Because, omnipotence is a requirement for God, remember?
To further clarify this point: If I throw a rock at a wall at 2:00PM EST, and I'm not God, then I did something God could not do - throw that particular rock at that particular wall at that particular time and place. That renders God neither omnipotent, nor omnipresent. And, the fact that God could not experience the throwing of the rock at the wall at that time and place, means that He also could not know about it - because, knowledge is acquired through experience - an experience He didn't have; because, something that was not God had it, instead.
This brings us to omniscience. For clarity, I'll repeat the definitions of knowledge, omniscient, and omniscience:
knowl·edge -
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
om·nis·cient -
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.
omniscience -
noun
the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
If God IS the Universe and all of the processes involved in its Creation, as is required by the characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence(which we have already established), then God is necessarily experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - and, therefore, able to acquire the acquaintance or familiarity attendant to meeting the definition of knowledge.
And, since God IS the Universe, and all knowledge of any kind is contained within it, God, by definition, possesses all knowledge of any kind, and is, therefore, omniscient.
Of course, these three simplistic terms do an injustice to God - the reality of God is far more complex than the simple acknowledgement of three fundamental characteristics. It would be more accurate and meaningful to say that God is All that is True in the Universe. That necessarily includes all of the matter in the Universe, as well as the space in between. It also necessarily includes all of the processes, circumstances, and events that take place anywhere and at any time in the Universe.
There, I've given you a proof for the existence of God and three of His/Her/Its fundamental characteristics. But, I would point out that, for every characteristic you would ascribe to God, you must be able to prove it - otherwise, you render the being to which you refer non-existent. That means that, as soon as you say something like, "God has promised that all those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will spend eternity in Heaven with Him, " you render God non-existent. Why? Because, you cannot prove that He made any such promise or that He could or would follow through with it - and, if you would assert that He did, then you MUST be referring to a different entity that cannot be proven to exist.
So, you can choose to accept a provable definition of God and one that requires no faith or belief; because, He/She/It makes no promises or threats and is self-evident and is provably Creating the Universe. Or, you can choose to believe in a God of your imagination, or the imaginations of others, that requires faith and belief. Or, you can choose to believe in no God at all. The choice is yours - and, God doesn't care one way, or another, which way you would choose. Any and all choices you make are attendant to God experiencing all there is to experience in the Universe - which is attendant to God's omniscience.
The bottom line is that God is a human construct. This is necessarily true. Why? Because, you are not capable of fully comprehending the entity that you would call "God." Why? Because, you cannot comprehend how to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. So, the best you can do is imagine what God must be like to be able to Create the Universe in all of its most intricate detail. And, God makes that clear to us through all that is True in the Universe. God hides nothing from us. God will reveal any and all of His Great Truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them. That is to say, the Universe and the processes responsible for its Creation, will reveal all of its truths to us in a manner that is exactly consistent with our willingness and ability to receive them.
Please, let me know what you think.”
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:Interesting. So, let me perception-check.
You are creating a definition of God, knowing that God is merely an artificial construct. In your definition, God is all that is, and all we can conceive that is logically true. This is distinct from pantheism, in that pantheism defines God as "all that is," and actually assigns true theistic attributes to that God.
So, the God of your definition is not theistic per se, correct? Or have I missed something there?
I think you've got it!
nigelTheBold wrote:The last sentence is interesting. You are claiming that a truth statement (the existence of God) is based on the definition of God, and the choice to embrace the construct. How does choice enter into existence of God?
You must make the choice to assign a label to something - anything, extant, or not. Not everyone would ever assign the label, "God" to All that is True in the Universe. For them, "God" does not exist - even if that does not preclude a God of our definition and understanding from existing, based on our choice to employ the construct. The question then becomes, "Does our construct reference an extant being, or not?" And, that is based on the tenability of our definition of the construct. And, that varies from person to person.
This is the intellectual dishonesty. You are assigning a label ("God" ) that has been through thousands of years of definition and understanding, to something that does not in any way resemble those previous definitions. That is worse than arbitrary, as it constitutes an intellectual bait-and-switch.
I think I understand that you wish to create a common, neutral ground from which an honest, logical debate might ensue. That is, despite my earlier outburst, a noble goal. However, your definition of God is a tautology. There is no escaping the existence of God, as you've defined God as all of existence. The truth value of your definition evaluates as true under all circumstances and assumptions.
It's a very convoluted tautology, I'll give you that. I think that may be why you fail to recognize it as such. But, when it's all said and done, it can be simply restated as:
God is defined as all the Universe, and all the truth statements that evaluate as true.
God exists, because the Universe and all truth statements that evaluate as true exist.
I just don't see this as a logical, rational, or tenable definition of God.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:lifewhispers wrote:<sigh>
If the definition of God is Creator of the Universe, then the Universe is necessarily evidence of that Creator. That is sound logic. Sorry, it went right over your head. But, that's your problem, not mine.
No. That's begging the question, which is not sound logic.
I'm going to quote from Wikipedia:
[edit] An example
"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:
- Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
- Paul is speaking.
- Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."
Such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.
END WIKI QUOTE
The logic IS valid, even if it is not, in and of itself, persuasive.
And, in this instance, there is a conditional statement:
"IF God is defined as Creator of the Universe," NOT, "God is Creator of the Universe"
Begging the question:
God IS Creator of the Universe
The Universe Exists
Therefore, God Created it
This is an entirely unpersuasive form of the syllogism - even if it is logically valid.
BUT, what I am employing is:
IF God is DEFINED as Creator of the Universe
THEN the Universe is necessarily evidence of the existence of the God we have defined.
This is a persuasive form of the syllogism that is conditioned upon the choice to define God as Creator of the Universe, rather than an arbitrary statement that attempts to prove itself. And, again, the logic is sound.
No. It is begging the question. Pure and simple. The little pussy-assed "If" at the beginning doesn't change the fact that the suppositions of the syllogism hold the conclusion of the syllogism. What you have a word-game, not a valid conclusion.
We HAD been having a civil conversation; but, if you'd like to ratchet things up a bit, I can play that way, too! Now, dipshit, PAY ATTENTION:
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT IT IS BEGGING THE QUESTION!!!
The FACT REMAINS that the logic is VALID!!! The conclusion logically follows from the premise! So, you're just plain fucking WRONG!
You seem to think that by commuting the internal self-reference to the "If you assume the definition of God as the Creator of the Universe..." that you are saved from begging the question. In that case, you suffer from intentional obfuscation as well as circular logic. That, Sir, makes you intellectually dishonest.
All you do is play word-games with definitions, and think we won't notice. And that makes you an idiot.
BULLSHIT!!!
You didn't even bother to think about this at all, did you? I've presented what no other religion on the fucking planet has done and that is a tenable definition of God, that neither you, nor any of the other morons on this site can seem to even comprehend, despite it's being so simple that a child could understand it.
So much for the idea that atheists are somehow more rational thinkers than theists. You just blew that idea to Hell!
I'm not even going to bother repeating this. Just fucking read it, again, in the proof itself. Shit-for-brains.
Now, would you care to continue this discussion in a civilized manner? Or, shall we continue to sling shit at one another. I can assure you, that you will not fare well against me in a shit-slinging contest.
If you ask NICELY, I might be willing to explain what seems to be confusing you so much.
- Login to post comments
Offline lifewhispers wrote:nigelTheBold wrote:Interesting. So, let me perception-check.
You are creating a definition of God, knowing that God is merely an artificial construct. In your definition, God is all that is, and all we can conceive that is logically true. This is distinct from pantheism, in that pantheism defines God as "all that is," and actually assigns true theistic attributes to that God.
So, the God of your definition is not theistic per se, correct? Or have I missed something there?
I think you've got it!
nigelTheBold wrote:The last sentence is interesting. You are claiming that a truth statement (the existence of God) is based on the definition of God, and the choice to embrace the construct. How does choice enter into existence of God?
You must make the choice to assign a label to something - anything, extant, or not. Not everyone would ever assign the label, "God" to All that is True in the Universe. For them, "God" does not exist - even if that does not preclude a God of our definition and understanding from existing, based on our choice to employ the construct. The question then becomes, "Does our construct reference an extant being, or not?" And, that is based on the tenability of our definition of the construct. And, that varies from person to person.
nigelTheBold wrote:This is the intellectual dishonesty. You are assigning a label ("God" ) that has been through thousands of years of definition and understanding, to something that does not in any way resemble those previous definitions. That is worse than arbitrary, as it constitutes an intellectual bait-and-switch.
1 - There is no common definition of God, outside of God is Creator of the Universe. Apart from that similarity, they are all different. That's part of the problem.
2 - My definition is in compliance with the common understanding of God as Creator of the Universe. Why? Because, All that is True in the Universe IS Creating the Universe. Just because theists and atheists may have never thought of it that way does not make it false. And, it is axiomatic. It PROVES ITSELF - BY DEFINITION. It cannot be refuted - PERIOD.
Here, try to follow:
ME: God is Creator of the Universe, which is All that is True in the Universe.
You: How do you know God Created the Universe?
ME: Because, I defined God AS Creator of the Universe.
You: Well, what's that?
ME: Whatever is Creating it
You: Well, what's that?
ME: I don't know; except, that I've decided to call it God.
You: Well, how do you know that God exists?
ME: Because, the Universe exists. SOMETHING has to be Creating it.
You: So, why are you calling God All that is True in the Universe.
ME: Because, only those circumstances, events, processes, and everything else in the Universe that is actually true COULD have done it - unless, you can come up with another explanation. Can you tell me how something that is not true could Create the Universe? If not, then consider that everything that is true in the Universe is creating it. Which is the more extraordinary claim?:
A - All that is True in the Universe, or God, is Creating the Universe
or
B - All that is True in the Universe, or God, does not exist
Which one should bear the burden of proof?
You: I say God does not exist and you cannot prove that God does exist. You're just playing word games.
ME: Then, according to my definition of God, you are saying that all that is true in the Universe does not exist. Did you really mean to say that? Do you really think that's true?
nigelTheBold wrote:God is defined as all the Universe, and all the truth statements that evaluate as true.
God exists, because the Universe and all truth statements that evaluate as true exist.
I just don't see this as a logical, rational, or tenable definition of God.
It is logical, rational, and tenable. It does not say much; but, it IS logical, rational, and tenable.
The conclusion logically follows from the premise - so, it is logical.
It makes no extraordinary claims, arbitrary conclusions, or unfounded assumptions - so, it is rational
It references something extant - so, it is tenable.
- Login to post comments
Offline It is logical, rational, and tenable. It does not say much; but, it IS logical, rational, and tenable.
The conclusion logically follows from the premise - so, it is logical.
It makes no extraordinary claims, arbitrary conclusions, or unfounded assumptions - so, it is rational
It references something extant - so, it is tenable.
Of *course* the conclusion logically follows from the premise.
Because the conclusion is the premise.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Now, would you care to continue this discussion in a civilized manner? Or, shall we continue to sling shit at one another. I can assure you, that you will not fare well against me in a shit-slinging contest.
You do certainly have more shit on your side. You seem to have an endless supply, in fact.
I know I should apologize. What I said was uncalled-for. Well, except for your pedantic attempt to obfuscate your logical fallacies. I know you're not an idiot for the reasons I stated. However, I do believe you have some serious problems with your logic that need addressed. (And I'm not the only one, apparently. But they must be just as stupid as me, right? You must be the smart one. Have you been diagnosed with NPD, by chance?)
It isn't sound logic, no matter how many times you say it is, nor how loudly you say it. It's about like this:
Bert: Hey, Ernie, why do you have the banana in your ear?
Ernie: To keep away the alligators.
Bert: There aren't any alligators around here.
Ernie: I know. It sure works well, doesn't it?
Yeah. It's true. All I know about logic I learned from Sesame Street.
Anyway, good luck. I do mean that sincerely.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Xlint thread ....
This is way I have repeatedly said , say "god of abe" or "god cosmos". Isn't redefining G O D our mission ? The > god < word is not going away ..... so fix it.
And so we are, 
.... RRS rocks, and thanks a bunch lifewhispers.
I AM 100% G AWED D , shit, what ain't ? ..... "god" ain't the problem, Dogma is. Dogma is the Devil ..... kill it , and we are, 
and that is what really matters to me ..... go go go science ! ......
- Login to post comments
Offline lifewhispers wrote:It is logical, rational, and tenable. It does not say much; but, it IS logical, rational, and tenable.
The conclusion logically follows from the premise - so, it is logical.
It makes no extraordinary claims, arbitrary conclusions, or unfounded assumptions - so, it is rational
It references something extant - so, it is tenable.
Of *course* the conclusion logically follows from the premise.
Because the conclusion is the premise.
Like it or not,
God = Creator of the Universe
Universe = exists
therefore,
God = exists
is a VALID syllogistic construct. But, it doesn't say much.
We still need to know what exactly that Creator, or God IS. So, we must further flesh out the definition, so that it can become tenable in a meaningful way, rather than just logically consistent with our premise.
God = Creator of the Universe
All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe
therefore,
God = All that is True in the Universe
All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe is AXIOMATIC. IT PROVES ITSELF. Therefore, when we assign God to that axiomatic definition, our God becomes AXIOMATIC and PROVES ITSELF - BY DEFINITION.
- Login to post comments
Offline Xlint thread ....
This is way I have repeatedly said , say "god of abe" or "god cosmos". Isn't redefining G O D our mission ? The > god < word is not going away ..... so fix it.
And so we are,
I AM 100% G AWED D , shit, what ain't ..... god an't the problem, Dogma is. Dogma is the Devil ..... kill it
Dude, I don't know how you do it, but you make the most sense of all of us.
LW: I humbly apologize for my ad-hominem attacks. They were beneath me, and completely undeserved, irrespective of our philosophical differences.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline It isn't sound logic, no matter how many times you say it is, nor how loudly you say it.
Argue the point with Wikipedia, if you aren't willing to actually think about this. It IS valid logic - even if it does not establish anything in and of itself. It need only have a conclusion that logically follows the premise. It does that.
It's about like this:
Bert: Hey, Ernie, why do you have the banana in your ear?
Ernie: To keep away the alligators.
Bert: There aren't any alligators around here.
Ernie: I know. It sure works well, doesn't it?
Yeah. It's true. All I know about logic I learned from Sesame Street.
If my syllogism is the one that is faulty, why not use it as your example, instead of a ridiculous straw man? And, then explain why it is faulty.
- Login to post comments
Offline LW: I humbly apologize for my ad-hominem attacks. They were beneath me, and completely undeserved, irrespective of our philosophical differences.
What philosophical differences? As far as I can tell, we simply disagree on whether the logic I have employed in my proof of God is valid, or not.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain an alternate definition of God that meets your logical approval. Do you have one to offer? Or, is it simply impossible to contrive a tenable definition of God? Come on, give it a shot. See if you can come up with a tenable definition for God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe (since that is the most commonly accepted application of the term) and still makes reference to something that both exists and can create the Universe - BUT, is NOT All that is True in the Universe and does not employ the logical fallacies of which you accuse me. You can't use "All that is True in the Universe"; because, you say it isn't logically sound.
Good luck!
- Login to post comments
Offline Like it or not,
God = Creator of the Universe
Universe = exists
therefore,
God = exists
is a VALID syllogistic construct. But, it doesn't say much.
We still need to know what exactly that Creator, or God IS. So, we must further flesh out the definition, so that it can become tenable in a meaningful way, rather than just logically consistent with our premise.
God = Creator of the Universe
All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe
therefore,
God = All that is True in the Universe
All that is True in the Universe = Creator of the Universe is AXIOMATIC. IT PROVES ITSELF. Therefore, when we assign God to that axiomatic definition, our God becomes AXIOMATIC and PROVES ITSELF - BY DEFINITION.
I apologized in a different post, but I will say it again here, directly to you: I apologize for my unseemly and undeserved attacks on your intelligence and your intentions. I know you are not an idiot, and I realize you are merely presenting and defending a logical construct.
This is a rather excellent post, especially considering the timing.
I was in a discussion a couple of weeks back in which I was forced to read Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism (http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html). He discusses analytic truths constructed exactly as you are constructing this. His argument is that analytic truths based on synonymy are semantically null, and therefore logically void. (Actually, his argument is much more, but that is part of it; also, I am greatly oversimplifying.) His proof of that is pretty entertaining, in which he employs linguistics to establish semantic meaning of synonymy, and analytic statements.
His metaphysics was based on relative ontologies, and his deconstruction of analytics was designed to create a holistic logic in which analytic statements and synthetic statements were no longer separate. I mention this to provide a little background for his purposes in removing synonymy as a valid logical construct.
Anyway, that was pretty much my biggest objection to your logic. The tautology is completely secondary, actually, as many analytic statements are tautologies, and some are true.
Later, Robert Barrett extended the analysis to include all analytic statements, and not just those of synonymy. This deconstruction has pretty much gutted analytic statements as separate from synthetic statements.
Now, when I read it all, I thought it was all just a bunch of splitting hairs, that really added very little to the concept of empiricism. With this practical example, I understand exactly what they meant. You are right: your construction is valid Kantian logic. I would argue your analytics, but not your technique. Applying the principle of synonymy, the analytics become trivial, and it's easy to see exactly where you and I diverge in our philosophy.
I hope this helps explain my lapse into unreasonableness. What I saw as a flaw in your logic seemed as natural and apparent to me as the logical truth of it to you, and I was frustrated that we seemed to be talking across each other. I attributed this to obtuseness on your part, rather than realizing it was a fundamental difference in analytics.
I'm glad to see you've reduced your logic down to less than a page. That's a big improvement over the original post.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline What philosophical differences? As far as I can tell, we simply disagree on whether the logic I have employed in my proof of God is valid, or not.
I hope that was adequately answered in my last post.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain an alternate definition of God that meets your logical approval. Do you have one to offer? Or, is it simply impossible to contrive a tenable definition of God? Come on, give it a shot. See if you can come up with a tenable definition for God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe (since that is the most commonly accepted application of the term) and still makes reference to something that both exists and can create the Universe - BUT, is NOT All that is True in the Universe and does not employ the logical fallacies of which you accuse me. You can't use "All that is True in the Universe"; because, you say it isn't logically sound.
Good luck!
This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition. If not, it'll be something similar. But in the end, it still relies on the definition to achieve the conclusion. Quinian synonymy reduces this to a completely void statement. I believe you know this intuitively, as you've often referenced the limited utility of the proof, other than to establish the existence of a logical God.
That is why I'm a hard atheist. I'm not agnostic at all. I know there can logically be no God. At least, I know it as much as we can know anything. Like Quine, I find I have a relative ontology. Most empiricists do, whether they realize it or not. So, all truths are contingent on understanding, and ontologies can shift. At some point, there may be proof for God. However, with our current knowledge, both philosophically and scientifically, God is an illogical construct. When the proof comes, it will have to rely on objective evidence, and not free-floating logical constructs that are true only by carefully-crafted definition.
You claimed it is atheists' dogmatic denial of God that keeps them from rationally discussing God. I believe that is incorrect. Most atheists have thought considerably about the possibility of God. Most of us have not just rejected the possibility out-of-hand. But when one of the best possible arguments is true only by synonymy, there is very little philosophical ore to mine.
Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.
In the end, I rather like iGod's Bronneresque philosophy. Not because its logical or rational, but because he doesn't need it to be. As I see it, the only way to sidestep the philosophic impossibility of God is to completely ignore empirical ontology. Don't even worry about the rationality of it, because in the end, it's illogical anyway.
That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Damn cool you guys. Hey, god is an Atheist of course ! 
Spread the "Good Word" ! Jesus/Buddha tried ..... and today Carlin/Condell. God has no god just as me and you .... We are ONE ! 
..... just to add, arguing who was the best teacher is something religious WACKS do ....... let's not go there fellow atheists ..... Debating and arguing are different things ..... "The ways of Science vs The ways of Religion" is an example ......
- Login to post comments
Offline What philosophical differences? As far as I can tell, we simply disagree on whether the logic I have employed in my proof of God is valid, or not.
I hope that was adequately answered in my last post.
Sorry, but it wasn't. I still don't understand your perspective.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain an alternate definition of God that meets your logical approval. Do you have one to offer? Or, is it simply impossible to contrive a tenable definition of God? Come on, give it a shot. See if you can come up with a tenable definition for God that allows God to be Creator of the Universe (since that is the most commonly accepted application of the term) and still makes reference to something that both exists and can create the Universe - BUT, is NOT All that is True in the Universe and does not employ the logical fallacies of which you accuse me. You can't use "All that is True in the Universe"; because, you say it isn't logically sound.
Good luck!
This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition...
But, I just provided you with one. You even concede its logical validity.
What you are claiming is that, despite our ability to logically define countlesss other words with respect to what they reference, we somehow cannot do that with the simple three letter word, "G-O-D." THAT is not logical.
...If not, it'll be something similar. But in the end, it still relies on the definition to achieve the conclusion.
So, how do our definitions of other words differ in that regard? Please, provide some examples that illustrate your point.
Quinian synonymy reduces this to a completely void statement. I believe you know this intuitively, as you've often referenced the limited utility of the proof, other than to establish the existence of a logical God.
I'm sorry, but I must take issue with Quine on this point. Quine's skepticism of synonomy necessarily leads to a skepticism of meaning. Given Quine's argument, discussions about correct or incorrect translations are impossible. How does he overcome that problem?
That is why I'm a hard atheist. I'm not agnostic at all. I know there can logically be no God...
Then, get to the business of proving that - with a logically consistent definition of God staring you in the face. I look forward to your attempt.
And, by the way, exactly what is it that you would say can never exist? You're claiming that there can logically be no God. But, exactly what is that you say can never logically exist?
...with our current knowledge, both philosophically and scientifically, God is an illogical construct.
WHAT is an illogical construct? Be specific - and, avoid synonomy, if you can (since, it is on that basis that you disqualify my proof).
Pretend I've never heard of the word, "God." How do you communicate what you are saying to me? This is Quine's problem, too.
When the proof comes, it will have to rely on objective evidence, and not free-floating logical constructs that are true only by carefully-crafted definition.
Proof of what? God? But, what's that? Remember, I've never heard of the word, "God." You'll have to DEFINE it for me.
You claimed it is atheists' dogmatic denial of God that keeps them from rationally discussing God. I believe that is incorrect. Most atheists have thought considerably about the possibility of God. Most of us have not just rejected the possibility out-of-hand. But when one of the best possible arguments is true only by synonymy, there is very little philosophical ore to mine.
The possibility of what? God? But, what's that? Remember, you and Quine don't like synonomy and definitions involve synonomy. How do we communicate meaningfully without it?
Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.
But, what have I made up that is not already there?
That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.
But, my statement is not semantically void.
God = All that is True in the Universe is not semantically void. It has meaning - whatever all that is true in the Universe means. And, that is certainly not meaningless. Unless, you are positing that All that is True in the Universe has no meaning and cannot be discerned logically.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry, but it wasn't. I still don't understand your perspective.
Oh, well. It took me a while to understand Quine. He's not easy to follow. But that is the philosophic difference to which I refer.
nigelTheBold wrote:This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition...
But, I just provided you with one. You even concede its logical validity.
What you are claiming is that, despite our ability to logically define countlesss other words with respect to what they reference, we somehow cannot do that with the simple three letter word, "G-O-D." THAT is not logical.
Yes, it is perfectly logical, given your analytic statements. Although we often define words with respect to that which they reference, you are doing more than that. First, you are imbueing God with a power, and with intent. This occurs during your first definition, with the creation of the universe. "Creation" is a term that implies construction with intent. I realize you do not mean it that way. However, it holds that meaning.
This creates a duality of meaning within the term "God." For one set (the atheists), "creation" is a material event, devoid of intent or reason. For theists, it becomes the crux of theology, an intentional act by a being able to employ intent to create a universe. So, your definition doesn't hold a single referent, though I know you intend it to do so.
Second, there's the leap of "creator of the the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true within." This is a logical leap, one which you again creatively employ definition. So, now God holds two distinct referents (creator of the universe, and all that is in the universe), as well as potential relative referents, depending on to whom you are talking. We can even ignore the relative referents, and just focus on the two distinct referents.
The two distinct referents make the definition ambiguous, as both referents are distinct and orthogonal.
Finally, there's the whole question of necessity. Each referent is ontologically redundant. We already have a conception of the beginning of the universe. Applying the word "God" to that beginning without having a distinct referent does not define the word "God" as a distinct concept, and so "God" is a redundant term. And, as the term "God" suffers from lack of an empirical definition, this term becomes not just redundant, but ambiguous in a way that is distinct from its dual referents.
Applying the term "God" to the entire universe, plus all the logical truths within the universe, is probably the most logical step, as there is (as far as I know) no distinct word for that conception. But, once you remove the "creator of the universe" from the "God" concept (which is, as you pointed out, the only point on which most extant definitions agree), it is questionable whether using the word "God" is appropriate.
Here are the problems I see with your logic:
The analytic statement, "God is the creator of the universe," presupposes a God. As you are using this as a basis for proving that God exists, the first statement begs the question. (Going back to the "If you assume that God is the creator of the universe..." then becomes a logical statement about belief, and not about the existence of God. If I assume that God exists, and then follow through, we end up with, "God is the creator of the universe. The Universe exists. Therefore, God exists." This is begging the question, and a tautology, so therefore is logically flawed. This is what I was trying to say when I went off the deep end before.) So, requiring God as the creator of the universe presupposes a creator of the universe, which is not empirically sound.
Second, there's the whole undefined step from "creator of the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true." This gives not one, but two referents to the concept of "God," which makes the term ambiguous.
Third, you allow personal choice to either allow God to refer to an extant entity with intent and consciousness, or simply all that is. This gives the definition a relative referent, which increases ambiguity.
There. Not one mention of Quine, nor synonymy.
nigelTheBold wrote:Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.
But, what have I made up that is not already there?
A creator. There need not be a creator, yet you have placed on smack-dab at the top of your list.
nigelTheBold wrote:That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.
But, my statement is not semantically void.
God = All that is True in the Universe is not semantically void. It has meaning - whatever all that is true in the Universe means. And, that is certainly not meaningless. Unless, you are positing that All that is True in the Universe has no meaning and cannot be discerned logically.
Since I'm not referencing Quine, I'll simply say: If you *mean* all that is true in the universe, why not just say that? Why take a word that has relative meaning based on personal belief and apply it to a distinct concept?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline
There will always be un-knows, some of them might be answered but others like the origin of the laws of physics wont probably be answered. We as the scientific minority understand that. But you aren't giving me any better of an answer. I think that science is going in the right direction with trying to explain existence. But you are just giving me a throwing up of the hands because you’re giving me a reason that there is utterly no evidence for. If you think there is any evidence of a god please show me. Even if the earth was created in 6 days and the earth is only 6000 years old that does not prove a god it just proves that the earth was created in 6 days and the earth is only 6000 years old. You’re not giving me a shred of evidence for a creator. You’re only giving me evidence that some old book got close. You don't know the answer so you’re throwing a magical being in the mix, well not even in the mix, as you say evolutionists are with our few holes of un-known, your throwing the magical being at the beginning and saying he did it lol. Well good sir I am no longer an atheist I now believe that Ronald McDonald created the earth, he made the double cheese burger and it was good. That argument is just the same as yours I have no evidence for Ronald creating the earth but hey evolution doesn’t explain the full depths of are existence yet so obviously Ronald did it how could I be so stupid.
Heath Gresham
- Login to post comments
Offline Right on HG, and thanks. Glad you are here.
This interesting thread is alot about semantics and defininitions. I often say, "Sure I accept Gawed, but phuck that god of abe, that is devil shit ! " ..... 
Kill that devil ....
- Login to post comments
Offline This is why I am an atheist: there is no logical definition of God. The closest we can get might even be your definition...
But, I just provided you with one. You even concede its logical validity.
What you are claiming is that, despite our ability to logically define countlesss other words with respect to what they reference, we somehow cannot do that with the simple three letter word, "G-O-D." THAT is not logical.
Yes, it is perfectly logical, given your analytic statements. Although we often define words with respect to that which they reference, you are doing more than that. First, you are imbueing God with a power, and with intent. This occurs during your first definition, with the creation of the universe. "Creation" is a term that implies construction with intent. I realize you do not mean it that way. However, it holds that meaning.
So, you're basically saying it's impossible to define God in a logically consistent manner; because, words can have multiple definitions. And, as long as words continue to have multiple definitions, it will remain impossible. Have I got that right?
This creates a duality of meaning within the term "God." For one set (the atheists), "creation" is a material event, devoid of intent or reason. For theists, it becomes the crux of theology, an intentional act by a being able to employ intent to create a universe. So, your definition doesn't hold a single referent, though I know you intend it to do so.
Well, just like everyone else, I am constrained to use words to communicate my ideas. Words can have mulitple definitions; and, the interpretation of them is dependent on the ability of the reader to apply the words in their proper context - not on the ability of the author to put his ideas into words. In other words, that's not my problem. If the reader is confused, I will clarify my meaning for them using other words, as necessary. But, I think the context of my proof is clear to all rational triers of fact. That's the most I can hope to accomplish using words. That's all ANYONE can hope to accomplish using words.
I further make clear my context by refining the definition of God as All that is True in the Universe. It is not logical or rational to assume I intend to imbue power and intent to All that is True in the Universe, merely by virtue of my employing the word, "creator."
I understand your SUBJECTIVE objection to my use of the word, "creator"; but, it just doesn't hold water, for the reason I just specified. And, let me point out that you knew that I did not mean it that way; therefore, your objection that it is ambiguous isn't sound. Why? Because, you accurately interpreted my meaning. Your objection seems to spring from the possibility that others, unlike you, may not be able to accurately interpret my meaning. But, you cannot demonstrate that to be the case - especially, in light of the fact that you did not misinterpret my message.
Second, there's the leap of "creator of the the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true within." This is a logical leap, one which you again creatively employ definition. So, now God holds two distinct referents (creator of the universe, and all that is in the universe), as well as potential relative referents, depending on to whom you are talking. We can even ignore the relative referents, and just focus on the two distinct referents.
The two distinct referents make the definition ambiguous, as both referents are distinct and orthogonal.
That really depends on the reader more so than the author. When taken on the whole, the context of what I am presenting becomes clear. At least, I have yet to encounter a theist who thought I was positing the consciousness and intent of All that is True in the Universe (on the contrary, they typically are outraged that I would strip God of His personification). That idea seems to only be coming from atheists. A strange conclusion, given the clear context I present, and given that atheists typically fancy themselves to be more logical and critical in their thoughts than theists.
And, it is clear that the Universe IS Creating itself. At least, there is absolutely no evidence of its being created by anything outside of the Universe. Therefore, in the context of creation of the Universe, to say that All that is True in the Universe is creating the Universe is not a logical leap - it is a natural and perfectly logical conclusion.
Finally, there's the whole question of necessity. Each referent is ontologically redundant. We already have a conception of the beginning of the universe. Applying the word "God" to that beginning without having a distinct referent does not define the word "God" as a distinct concept, and so "God" is a redundant term.
But, I am not applying "God" merely to the beginning of the Universe, but to its creation as an ongoing process. It is clear that the creation of the Universe is not complete. The "event" is a work in progress. The Big Bang is not over.
And, we have many redundant terms in the English language. But, we maintain them, anyway, because of the subtle differences in their meanings and applications. Words are particularly crude tools to use for communication; but, we use them. As long as we do, we will always have that problem. I cannot do anything about that.
And, as the term "God" suffers from lack of an empirical definition, this term becomes not just redundant, but ambiguous in a way that is distinct from its dual referents.
But, I just gave you one. All that is True in the Universe IS an empirical definition of God. It CAN be tested by virtue of applying a test of truth to that which you would ascribe to God. If it is true, it IS God. If it is not true, it is NOT God. How is that not empirical?
Applying the term "God" to the entire universe, plus all the logical truths within the universe, is probably the most logical step, as there is (as far as I know) no distinct word for that conception. But, once you remove the "creator of the universe" from the "God" concept (which is, as you pointed out, the only point on which most extant definitions agree), it is questionable whether using the word "God" is appropriate.
But, why would I remove it? It's true. Here, let me make myself more clear:
cre·a·tor 
/kriˈeɪtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-ey-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
| 1. | a person or thing that creates. |
| 2. | the Creator, God. |
Definition 1 allows for a thing that creates. All that is True in the Universe, or God, is Creating the Universe. I see no reason I should have to remove it - especially, when the second definition of the word makes a distinct reference to God - and, that is the subject of the discussion.
Here are the problems I see with your logic: The analytic statement, "God is the creator of the universe," presupposes a God. As you are using this as a basis for proving that God exists, the first statement begs the question. (Going back to the "If you assume that God is the creator of the universe..." then becomes a logical statement about belief, and not about the existence of God. If I assume that God exists, and then follow through, we end up with, "God is the creator of the universe. The Universe exists. Therefore, God exists." This is begging the question, and a tautology, so therefore is logically flawed. This is what I was trying to say when I went off the deep end before.) So, requiring God as the creator of the universe presupposes a creator of the universe, which is not empirically sound.
See my explanation, above. God is DEFINED AS Creator of the Universe. It assumes only that the Universe is being Created. WHATEVER is creating the Universe IS creating it - or, we would not be here to discuss it. That is a FAIR and LOGICAL assumption that cannot be refuted. It is NOT begging the question.
Second, there's the whole undefined step from "creator of the universe" to "the universe and all that is logically true." This gives not one, but two referents to the concept of "God," which makes the term ambiguous.
But, it is axiomatic that All that is True in the Universe is creating it. The Universe IS being created. All there is in the Universe is All that is True in the Universe. That leaves room for nothing else that could be responsible for its Creation. Or, can you demonstrate the existence of something that is not true that is responsible for the creation of the Universe? From my perspective, you are reasoning yourself into absurdity. In the absence of any other possible explanation, how does that allow for any ambiguity, here?
I gave you the short form of the syllogism, in an earlier post. You concede it as valid Kantian logic.
Third, you allow personal choice to either allow God to refer to an extant entity with intent and consciousness, or simply all that is. This gives the definition a relative referent, which increases ambiguity.
There is still the distinct possibility of an extant entity with intent and consciousness - even if we cannot prove that intent and consciousness. It would be logically fallacious to just disallow that possibility. Regardless, of whether such an entity exists, or not, the way things really are remains the same.
Now, I could get all creative and use quantum mechanics to build up both a creator and universal consciousness, but then I'd just be making shit up. I can spin a tale like nobody's business. I can create entire worlds and universes and populate them with interesting characters. (You'll be one of them.) But in the end, it's just making shit up.
But, what have I made up that is not already there?
A creator. There need not be a creator, yet you have placed on smack-dab at the top of your list.
Here is where your logic is flawed. Yes, there NECESSARILY MUST be a Creator of the Universe (thing that gives rise to, or creates) . Or, we would not be here to discuss it. Whatever that might be, it is definitely TRUE and can safely be assumed.
That may be the curse of being a logical positivist. I just can't accept a logically-complete, semantically void statement as any kind of truth.
But, my statement is not semantically void.
God = All that is True in the Universe is not semantically void. It has meaning - whatever all that is true in the Universe means. And, that is certainly not meaningless. Unless, you are positing that All that is True in the Universe has no meaning and cannot be discerned logically.
Since I'm not referencing Quine, I'll simply say: If you *mean* all that is true in the universe, why not just say that? Why take a word that has relative meaning based on personal belief and apply it to a distinct concept?
1 - Because, there is no single word that already adequately describes the concept I am presenting
2 - Because, the word "God" seemed the most appropriate term to apply to that concept.
3 - By doing so, I remove the relative meaning of the word and make it specific, thus, removing the ambiguity to which you seem to object.
.
nigelTheBold
Well, "convert," to me, seemed to imply you thought I was seeking followers. Sorry, if I was mistaken about that.
Anyway, I do desire that others at least examine the proof, if for no other reason than to get them to critically analyze their own ideas about God in contrast to my own. If I can accomplish that small feat, I feel I have won the battle. A seed of doubt is all that is required to displace faith. A proof of God is a pretty compelling seed of doubt in the minds of those with faith in the Gods of faith-based religions that offer none.
Apart from that goal, I don't care whether anyone embraces my construct of God, or not. So, no, I am not even seeking converts - although, I have made some.
How so?
First of all, it is a REAL definition of God, not an artificial definition of God. THEIRS is the artificial definition of God. Why? Because, theirs could never exist - mine can.
Appeasement? Well, yes and no. Yes, it appeases them by conceding a God that Created the Universe - without conceding methods or intentions.
Willful ignorance? Hardly. To peddle the "God did it" AS an explanation for the Universe is to peddle ignorance. But, that is not what I am doing at all. I am defining God as Creator of the Universe, which also happens to be and MUST be All that is True in the Universe. This DEMANDS a process of discovering what the truth is, in order to know God and how God Created the Universe. That is a BIG difference, don't you think?
And, what do you mean, "Intellectual dishonesty?" How is anything I have presented dishonest?
On the contrary, theologically, I have liberated God from the clutches of dishonest fools who would claim to speak for Him. What I have done is castrate the religions that exploit God for their own purposes.
I really don't care whether atheists accept my definition of God, any more than I do the theists. Again, my goal is to get them to think more logically and rationally about God. If I can do that, I have accomplished my goal.
Still? What other questions might you have?