[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Eudaimonist]

Sure, one can know that contradictions cannot exist. That doesn't require an empirical search of the entire universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Actually That is what I'm saying. I can prove it quite easily because I have studied the issue from the standpoint of fundamental principles (something no theist I've ever met has done) and I have an objective theory of concepts. So yes I say unflinchingly that there are no gods, at least the ones portrayed in the Bible or the Koran or the Talmud. This is not a case of proving a negative however. I would not even attempt such a thing. But rather it is a proof that Christianity is false based on the claims it makes about the fundamental nature of existence. Those claims are well withing the realm of cognition and they are completely and incontravertably at odds with the facts of reality.

So are you claiming to know that God does not exist?

 

[True Scotsman]

So are you claiming to know that God does not exist?

Yes, unflinchingly.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, unflinchingly.

Okay then, may I present some logic and reason for my belief that God does exist? Here goes:

The concept of an infinitely small singularity is the latest and greatest from the "smartest" scientific minds in the world, namely Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, read Grand Design by Stephen Hawking if your unfamiliar with the concept.

Here's my argument against this concept that I call the problem of an unalterably true, infinitely small singularity.

Lets imagine we take all human minds away and are back at the beginning of the universe. We have an infinitely small singularity and since there are no human minds to perceive this singularity, it is untestable and unverifiable, it is also unalterably true that this singularity existed before the universe because its existence is not dependent on our human minds. So, using logic and reason(since we can't test and verify this) explain how an unalterably true, infinitely small singularity was altered into anything other than an unalterably true infinitely small singularity? If you can explain this using logic and reason that makes sense, I will believe you.

Now let me explain it using logic and reason that makes sense, but is also untestable and unverifiable. It was not unalterably true that the universe was preceded by an infinitely small singularity, but rather it is unalterably true that the universe was created by an infinitely intelligent and timeless entity that exists beyond the universe as well as within the universe. This entity actually permeates all existence and is the very reason for existence and actually is existence. This would mean that non-existence is impossible, which also makes sense because even if non-existence was possible, something that exists could never know or realize non-existence.

Neither of the above concepts are testable or verifiable, but which of the two makes more sense?

Now imagine you were this infinitely intelligent entity and the intelligent beings you created to have free will insisted on replacing you with an infinitely small singularity concept that they just made up in order to say you don't exist. Seems plausible and this seems to be exactly what the godless scientific community is trying to do.

So will you believe in something that can't possibly exist, like an infinitely small singularity because it defies all logic and reason? Or will you believe in something that could possibly exist like God because it makes more sense and is logical and reasonable? Neither can be tested or verified so you must believe in one or the other. Will you use logic and reason or will you throw those to the side when they don't support your beliefs?

 

[madera23]

This thread does speak for itself, but it doesn't say what you want it to say.

If any thing is ignorant it is this topic..

 

[True Scotsman]

Okay then, may I present some logic and reason for my belief that God does exist? Here goes:

The concept of an infinitely small singularity is the latest and greatest from the "smartest" scientific minds in the world, namely Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, read Grand Design by Stephen Hawking if your unfamiliar with the concept.

Here's my argument against this concept that I call the problem of an unalterably true, infinitely small singularity.

Lets imagine we take all human minds away and are back at the beginning of the universe. We have an infinitely small singularity and since there are no human minds to perceive this singularity, it is untestable and unverifiable, it is also unalterably true that this singularity existed before the universe because its existence is not dependent on our human minds. So, using logic and reason(since we can't test and verify this) explain how an unalterably true, infinitely small singularity was altered into anything other than an unalterably true infinitely small singularity? If you can explain this using logic and reason that makes sense, I will believe you.

Now let me explain it using logic and reason that makes sense, but is also untestable and unverifiable. It was not unalterably true that the universe was preceded by an infinitely small singularity, but rather it is unalterably true that the universe was created by an infinitely intelligent and timeless entity that exists beyond the universe as well as within the universe. This entity actually permeates all existence and is the very reason for existence and actually is existence. This would mean that non-existence is impossible, which also makes sense because even if non-existence was possible, something that exists could never know or realize non-existence.

Neither of the above concepts are testable or verifiable, but which of the two makes more sense?

Now imagine you were this infinitely intelligent entity and the intelligent beings you created to have free will insisted on replacing you with an infinitely small singularity concept that they just made up in order to say you don't exist. Seems plausible and this seems to be exactly what the godless scientific community is trying to do.

So will you believe in something that can't possibly exist, like an infinitely small singularity because it defies all logic and reason? Or will you believe in something that could possibly exist like God because it makes more sense and is logical and reasonable? Neither can be tested or verified so you must believe in one or the other. Will you use logic and reason or will you throw those to the side when they don't support your beliefs?

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with my argument. Whatever scientist claim about the big bang is irrelevant.

1. If existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist.

2. Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefore the Christian God does not exist.

This argument proves Christianity to be false at the most fundamental level, its starting point. This argument's logic is impeccable and its premises are incontestably true. Its conclusion must be true.

 

[Chriliman]

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with my argument. Whatever scientist claim about the big bang is irrelevant.

1. If existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness, then the Christian God does not exist.

2. Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefore the Christian God does not exist.

This argument proves Christianity to be false at the most fundamental level, its starting point. This argument's logic is impeccable and its premises are incontestably true. Its conclusion must be true.

How do you define the Christian God? I just said the Christian God is existence itself, The Christian God simply "is", this is why He and only He can say "I am". Yes His existence has metaphysical primacy over our consciousness. He claims He is conscious, so His consciousness can be thought of as timeless or having no beginning and no end.

So if we consider consciousness. We humans require our conscious minds in order to realize a degree of objective truth, so then it would make sense for there to be an unalterable conscious mind that "realizes" unalterable objective truth. Except this entity is timeless so it doesn't "realize" anything in the way we do because it simply is everything and already knows everything at all times. So your definition of the Christian God is inaccurate and it makes sense that you would have a wrong definition of the Christian God seeing as how you don't believe in the true Christian God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

He claims He is conscious, so His consciousness can be thought of as timeless or having no beginning and no end.

Right, and that "consciousness" is claimed to have created physical existence, thus explaining the universe.

So, God being "consciousness" that is transcendent to physical existence is what he means by consciousness having metaphysical priority over existence, contradicting (2).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Right, and that "consciousness" is claimed to have created physical existence, thus explaining the universe.

So, God being "consciousness" that is transcendent to physical existence is what he means by consciousness having metaphysical priority over existence, contradicting (2).


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your not understanding that God's consciousness is timeless and therefore cannot be compared to our consciousness in time.

And here's about where someone will ask for physical evidence of something that is beyond physical time and space. Your physical evidence is me giving you a clear reason to believe in God.

 

[Chriliman]

No human can prove the existence of God. Only God can prove to us that He exists. The question is, do you want God to prove His existence to you? If yes, then He will, if no then your in for a rude awakening after you die. This is what I believe to be true.

 

[bhsmte]

No human can prove the existence of God. Only God can prove to us that He exists. The question is, do you want God to prove His existence to you? If yes, then He will, if no then your in for a rude awakening after you die. This is what I believe to be true.

If a human has a strong enough need to believe anything, their mind will convince themselves it is true.

This is a well known psychological reality and has zero to do with whether something is true or not.

 

[True Scotsman]

How do you define the Christian God? I just said the Christian God is existence itself, The Christian God simply "is", this is why He and only He can say "I am". Yes His existence has metaphysical primacy over our consciousness. He claims He is conscious, so His consciousness can be thought of as timeless or having no beginning and no end.

So if we consider consciousness. We humans require our conscious minds in order to realize a degree of objective truth, so then it would make sense for there to be an unalterable conscious mind that "realizes" unalterable objective truth. Except this entity is timeless so it doesn't "realize" anything in the way we do because it simply is everything and already knows everything at all times. So your definition of the Christian God is inaccurate and it makes sense that you would have a wrong definition of the Christian God seeing as how you don't believe in the true Christian God.

I'm working off of Christianity's definition or rather Christianity's description. Definitions are something that apply to concepts and God is said to be an actual existent, not an abstraction. Are you claiming that the Christian description of God as a consciousness which created everything in existence and which existence depends on is inaccurate? If you have a different description of God what is it? The idea of a consciousness which created everything which exists makes no sense in the light of the primacy of existence.

 

[True Scotsman]

Right, and that "consciousness" is claimed to have created physical existence, thus explaining the universe.

So, God being "consciousness" that is transcendent to physical existence is what he means by consciousness having metaphysical priority over existence, contradicting (2).


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's right and since premise two's truth is axiomatic, there is no contradicting it. It would have to be accepted, even if only implicitly, in order to deny it. Of course the truth of premise one is also axiomatic resting as it does on the law of identity. To deny either premise would be to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. Therefor this argument is irrefutable. That's how I can know that God does not exist.

 

[True Scotsman]

No human can prove the existence of God. Only God can prove to us that He exists. The question is, do you want God to prove His existence to you? If yes, then He will, if no then your in for a rude awakening after you die. This is what I believe to be true.

This is true because you can't prove a contradiction.

 

[True Scotsman]

Your not understanding that God's consciousness is timeless and therefore cannot be compared to our consciousness in time.

And here's about where someone will ask for physical evidence of something that is beyond physical time and space. Your physical evidence is me giving you a clear reason to believe in God.

Since metaphysical primacy has specifically to do with the proper relationship between a conscious subject and the objects it is conscious of, time and place are irrelevant. They are simply omitted measurements. Also the specific type of consciousness is irrelevant. The concept consciousness is an open ended integration of all consciousnesses both known and unknown, both in the past or in the future. Whether we are talking about the consciousness of man or another consciousness, the relationship is the same and is contextually fixed.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm working off of Christianity's definition or rather Christianity's description. Definitions are something that apply to concepts and God is said to be an actual existent, not an abstraction. Are you claiming that the Christian description of God as a consciousness which created everything in existence and which existence depends on is inaccurate? If you have a different description of God what is it? The idea of a consciousness which created everything which exists makes no sense in the light of the primacy of existence.

Your not understanding that God's consciousness is beyond the universe and is timeless and God is existence in that He has no beginning and no end, He simply has always existed.

This concept of God having a timeless conscious mind can explain the phenomena observed in quantum physics. However, it requires even more thinking and you guys aren't even willing to accept that what I've already said does make sense.

 

[True Scotsman]

Your not understanding that God's consciousness is beyond the universe and is timeless and God is existence in that He has no beginning and no end, He simply has always existed.

This concept of God having a timeless conscious mind can explain the phenomena observed in quantum physics. However, it requires even more thinking and you guys aren't even willing to accept that what I've already said does make sense.

I've just proven that God does not exist. I need not consider it any further. I have no obligation to refute an arbitrary claim like yours. The argument is valid and sound so therefore its conclusion is true.

 

[Chriliman]

I've just proven that God does not exist. I need not consider it any further. I have no obligation to refute an arbitrary claim like yours. The argument is valid and sound so therefore its conclusion is true.

Bold claim! Except your not considering that if God has always existed and will never cease to exist then He does not contradict the metaphysical primacy. Because He is the very reason you or I can even think of the metaphysical primacy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Except your not considering that if God has always existed and will never cease to exist then He does not contradict the metaphysical primacy.

Actually, yes, it does. Timelessness is irrelevant to the metaphysical principle he is talking about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[True Scotsman]

Bold claim! Except your not considering that if God has always existed and will never cease to exist then He does not contradict the metaphysical primacy. Because He is the very reason you or I can even think of the metaphysical primacy.

Besides the fact that this premise begs the question, since it assumes the very thing that is at issue, it's clear that you do not understand the issue of metaphysical primacy. That's not a mark against you by the way. I would be very surprised if you have ever heard of it. I suggest that you gain that understanding before you attempt to interact with this argument further. You seem like a sincere person who is genuinely interested in learning. You are on the threshold of a great discovery here if you will only look at it.