Argument for the existence of God

[Plasmatic]

Jacob I suppose you have some sort of idea of how this god "creates something out of nothing" by necessity.

I don't see the difference between the above claim and one that says someone created a square-circle. To create means to rearrange existent materials into new configurations. You are stealing the concept "create". What you have here is an arbitrary use of a word into a context that there is no warrant for.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Greebo]

To create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity. Creation of something requires something from which the creation is to be made. That is part of EVERYTHING'S nature. That is intrinsic to everything's identity.

You're positing a being that can change the very nature of identity - ignoring the law of identity - yet simultaneously is subject to the law of identity. That is a contradiction. That is what I meant by "So - you propose a being that is not, in fact, subject to Identity - but under Identity must have one to act."

More later - gotta get to work.

[Jacob86]

As far as anti-matter goes, it's quite real (and expensive to make in labs) and it's essentially nothing more than reversely charged particles (so if the electron is charged negatively (-), than the antielectron (or positron) is charged positively (+); several million atoms of antihydrogen were produced, actually; unfortunately I'm not very well documented in electromagnetism to offer more details on the subject.

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. I was under the impression that "antimatter" was "non-matter".

[Jacob86]

AUGH NO ONE IS SAYING THAT PERCEPTUAL DATA IS ABOVE LOGIC!!!! Perception is the base of knowledge. THAT'S IT! To ACQUIRE any knowledge at all requires logic. "Logic exists" is not an axiom because to even DO logic requires CONTENT to do logic with.

"logic exists" is not an axiom. But "A is A" is an axiom. And "A is not non-A" is a corollary of this axiom. And Rand's definition of "Logic" is "Non-contradictory identification" which is a short way of saying "application of these two laws of logic". So in THAT way, I believe that "logic" is axiomatic. I'm sure the response will be "application to what?" and the answer is anything and everything.

I imagine you'll point out that you can do logic on concepts, but answer first the question I asked about validating justice and god. I'm asking you to validate justice, because if you can do THAT, I can demonstrate how you CAN'T validate god and also what it means for a concept to be reducible to the perceptual level. Or at least you'll understand the Objectivist position a lot better.

I apologize that I don't have time right now to study the way Oists validate things like "justice", so if you have time, please spell it out. If I am mistaken about the Oist position, I do want to be corrected as I do not wish to argue against a "straw-man". So, how does Oism show that "justice" is valid and "God" is not?

[Greebo]

I apologize that I don't have time right now to study the way Oists validate things like "justice", so if you have time, please spell it out. If I am mistaken about the Oist position, I do want to be corrected as I do not wish to argue against a "straw-man". So, how does Oism show that "justice" is valid and "God" is not?

What fact of reality gave rise to the concept “justice”? The fact that man must draw conclusions about the things, people and events around him, i.e., must judge and evaluate them. Is his judgment automatically right? No. What causes his judgment to be wrong? The lack of sufficient evidence, or his evasion of the evidence, or his inclusion of considerations other than the facts of the case. How, then, is he to arrive at the right judgment? By basing it exclusively on the factual evidence and by considering all the relevant evidence available. But isn’t this a description of “objectivity”? Yes, “objective judgment” is one of the wider categories to which the concept “justice” belongs. What distinguishes “justice” from other instances of objective judgment? When one evaluates the nature or actions of inanimate objects, the criterion of judgment is determined by the particular purpose for which one evaluates them. But how does one determine a criterion for evaluating the character and actions of men, in view of the fact that men possess the faculty of volition? What science can provide an objective criterion of evaluation in regard to volitional matters? Ethics. Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.”

[bobgo]

Following the posts, it seems to me that there are some key concepts that are taken for granted. Because of those “obvious” concepts, not treated as problematic, it seems to me that the discussion is turning around.

I beg you to let some room to question that obvious...!

For example about the use of the word: Existence.

The posts are really full of “Existence” and “it exists”.

Emblematic it is the sentence:

Existence exists. Existence is ALL of existence. Nothing exists outside of existence

And also:

And about matter and energy...

If we are looking for God, everything we use to get Him has to be absolutely clear!

I tried to explain how “existence” consists in the contemporary presence of subject and object.

Anyway, to show how wrong it’s to forget the subject, let me focalize for a while on the object only.

That is, let me suppose that the object exists by itself.

To explain this point, I’ll face the sentence: “Matter exists”.

Our physical world appears to be made by matter and vacuum.

Matter and vacuum both exist.

Matter is the concreteness, while vacuum is where matter can move.

Without matter, the vacuum would be very similar to Nothing.

But... also matter without vacuum would be very similar to Nothing.

Matter and vacuum are the bases of physical world.

That makes sense, in our every day life.

But, because our aim is to look for God, that obvious sense it is not enough, we need to be absolutely sure about matter and vacuum meanings.

That because God is the Truth, so God has to be absolutely True. To get Him, therefore, we need a perfect or absolutely sure knowledge.

So throw ourselves to find the absolute knowledge of matter and vacuum...

As the ancient Greek, we are convinced that something of concrete indivisible matter must exist.

It must be indivisible because to divide an object we need some vacuum into it.

That indivisible object, that has been supposed to exist, it was called atom, and now we can call it particle. Never mind the name we use... something of indivisible must exist!

Why?

Because if the division would be possible again and again without end... that object would be made by vacuum!

Nevertheless, that indivisible material object it’s impossible to find. To the point that science in now talking no more about matter but about energy... As energy without matter could make sense...

It’s also interesting that trying to find out vacuum no results are possible!

Every time we look for something that seems matter it comes to vacuum, or if it seems vacuum... it vanishes into matter.

Our world appears as the play of matter and vacuum. But they do not exist themselves.

To find out what really exists, we have to question the real meaning of: Existence

Without that knowledge, it is no use talking about God.

[Greebo]

If we are looking for God, everything we use to get Him has to be absolutely clear!

If you are looking for God, you are attempting to justify a foregone conclusion.

To explain this point, I’ll face the sentence: “Matter exists”.

Our physical world appears to be made by matter and vacuum.

Matter and vacuum both exist.

Matter is the concreteness, while vacuum is where matter can move.

Without matter, the vacuum would be very similar to Nothing.

But... also matter without vacuum would be very similar to Nothing.

More correct would be Energy and Space, as matter is simply energy in it's cohesive state.

In fact, the distinction between Energy and Space vs. Matter and Vaccuum is broad enough that you really need to go back and start over.

But, because our aim is to look for God, that obvious sense it is not enough, we need to be absolutely sure about matter and vacuum meanings.

That because God is the Truth, so God has to be absolutely True. To get Him, therefore, we need a perfect or absolutely sure knowledge.

You are "looking for God" but you have defined God already - again, foregone conclusion as opposed to a conclusion that is inescapably derived from observational evidence.

[Jacob86]

To create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity. Creation of something requires something from which the creation is to be made. That is part of EVERYTHING'S nature. That is intrinsic to everything's identity.

Could you elaborate on how and why you hold that "to create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity"? Unless your meaning is the following:

It seems that you might be saying that it is a contradiction because of the definition of the word "create". Your concept/definition of "creation" necessarily implies already existent material to work with. And therefore the "creation" of non-existent material is a contradiction.

Is this an accurate summary of your position here??

If so, I think it misses the point. If you want to contend that the concept "creation" be limited to mean working on pre-existent material, I suppose that's fine. This just means that we need a different word to signify the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". I was calling it "creation" and trying to make clear that I meant it in a different way than you meant it. But if you would rather use a different term, that's fine. Regardless, since it is being used in radically different respects, it is not a contradiction.

You're positing a being that can change the very nature of identity - ignoring the law of identity - yet simultaneously is subject to the law of identity. That is a contradiction. That is what I meant by "So - you propose a being that is not, in fact, subject to Identity - but under Identity must have one to act."

More later - gotta get to work.

I think that my above comments clear this up. If not, let me know.

[Jacob86]

Jacob I suppose you have some sort of idea of how this god "creates something out of nothing" by necessity.

I don't see the difference between the above claim and one that says someone created a square-circle. To create means to rearrange existent materials into new configurations. You are stealing the concept "create". What you have here is an arbitrary use of a word into a context that there is no warrant for.

See my most recent response to Greebo.

I thought I had made it obvious that I was using the term "create" in a very different respect than to "re-arrange existent material". If you wish to make the term "create" limited to this (rearranging already existent material), that's fine. We just need a new term to designate the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". "Create" is just the closest word I can think of.

But as I said. Even if we use the same term, it is obviously not a contradiction because it is obviously being used in different respects.

[Greebo]

Could you elaborate on how and why you hold that "to create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity"? Unless your meaning is the following:

It seems that you might be saying that it is a contradiction because of the definition of the word "create". Your concept/definition of "creation" necessarily implies already existent material to work with. And therefore the "creation" of non-existent material is a contradiction.

Is this an accurate summary of your position here??

Correct.

If so, I think it misses the point. If you want to contend that the concept "creation" be limited to mean working on pre-existent material, I suppose that's fine. This just means that we need a different word to signify the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". I was calling it "creation" and trying to make clear that I meant it in a different way than you meant it. But if you would rather use a different term, that's fine. Regardless, since it is being used in radically different respects, it is not a contradiction.

If you are using the term "to create" to mean "to bring into being something who's constituent components had absolutely no prior form of existence in any state" then you are using an arbitrary definition of "to create". There is no supporting evidence to justify the claim that an entity can be created without acting upon one or more other entities as a part of the process of creation. Even Hawking doesn't try that trick. He theorizes that already existing energy coalesces into matter, not that matter appears from nothing.

I think that my above comments clear this up. If not, let me know.

Well they make it clear that your definitions are arbitrary - ie - not grounded in reality. As such there is really nothing more to say - they certainly cannot be taken as *proof* - but they cannot be disproved, either. As a reformed Agnostic, I appreciate the desire to take the arbitrary as plausible, but it is not logically valid to do so.

[dream_weaver]

Could you elaborate on how and why you hold that "to create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity"? Unless your meaning is the following:

It seems that you might be saying that it is a contradiction because of the definition of the word "create". Your concept/definition of "creation" necessarily implies already existent material to work with. And therefore the "creation" of non-existent material is a contradiction.

Is this an accurate summary of your position here??

If so, I think it misses the point. If you want to contend that the concept "creation" be limited to mean working on pre-existent material, I suppose that's fine. This just means that we need a different word to signify the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". I was calling it "creation" and trying to make clear that I meant it in a different way than you meant it. But if you would rather use a different term, that's fine. Regardless, since it is being used in radically different respects, it is not a contradiction.

I think that my above comments clear this up. If not, let me know.

For some reason, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, comes to mind.

[Greebo]

For some reason, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, comes to mind.

Strictly speaking, the term is energy, not matter.

[Jacob86]

If you are using the term "to create" to mean "to bring into being something who's constituent components had absolutely no prior form of existence in any state" then you are using an arbitrary definition of "to create". There is no supporting evidence to justify the claim that an entity can be created without acting upon one or more other entities as a part of the process of creation. Even Hawking doesn't try that trick. He theorizes that already existing energy coalesces into matter, not that matter appears from nothing.

Well they make it clear that your definitions are arbitrary - ie - not grounded in reality. As such there is really nothing more to say - they certainly cannot be taken as *proof* - but they cannot be disproved, either. As a reformed Agnostic, I appreciate the desire to take the arbitrary as plausible, but it is not logically valid to do so.

So, your argument basically amounts to "We've never seen or experienced anything like this and therefor it is not true"??

This is not meant as ad hominem...only an attempt to summarize the plain meaning of your argument.

[Greebo]

So, your argument basically amounts to "We've never seen or experienced anything like this and therefor it is not true"??

This is not meant as ad hominem...only an attempt to summarize the plain meaning of your argument.

No - not quite on two different points. One is the basis of plausibility, the other is the state of the claim (true or false).

One - direct experiential data is not required for plausibility, only for verification. What is required for plausibility is that no elements of the concept be arbitrary.

Real world example: Until recently, black holes were purely theoretical. The science strongly suggested their existence, but no conclusive evidence had been observed. They were plausible - because every element of the theory which suggested them was grounded in reality at some point. When conclusive evidence confirming their existence was observed, they were validated.

Your claim of a different form of creation is not plausible because the concept does not ground in reality.

Two - The arbitrary is neither true NOR false - the concepts of true and false do not apply to the arbitrary. True and false apply to the arbitrary like square roots apply to cats. There is no cognitive connection between Truth and the arbitrary (false being Not True). The arbitrary is cognitively null - neither provable NOR disprovable.

[bobgo]

If you are looking for God, you are attempting to justify a foregone conclusion.

I’m not attempting to justify a foregone conclusion.

Because God appears to me as Nothing.

God is to me the same of Truth.

In fact, there is not Truth: nothing is absolutely true.

So, I can not pray God, because it’s Nothing.

It is for this reason of that it is so important to me my faith in God.

More correct would be Energy and Space, as matter is simply energy in it's cohesive state.

In fact, the distinction between Energy and Space vs. Matter and Vaccuum is broad enough that you really need to go back and start over.

My aim is to show how tricky it to say: “It exists”.

Matter and vacuum are to me just concepts, nothing to do with true “existence”.

Truly we can think that other concepts, like energy and space, will match existence?

That is, even if I’d start over, would be the question about physical world existence solved?

Saying that “matter is simply energy in it's cohesive state” it seems meaning that matter does not exist, because what really exists it’s energy. But so we put ahead the problem of existence without solving it.

Furthermore, does energy make sense without matter?

You are "looking for God" but you have defined God already - again, foregone conclusion as opposed to a conclusion that is inescapably derived from observational evidence.

I do not have defined God. I only said that He has to be true.

Even if I don’t know what “true” really means. I don’t know because I don’t master the meaning of Existence.

Always mine it’s the responsibility of my choices, and... never I’m sure about Good or Evil. Always I have to do an act of faith in Good.

God (or Truth, or Good, or Justice because all them are the same) appears to me as Nothing. Is only a question of my faith if that Nothing is the source of infinite possibilities rather than the absolute Nothing.

[Greebo]

In fact, there is not Truth: nothing is absolutely true.

Is it an absolute truth that nothing is absolutely true?

[bobgo]

Could you elaborate on how and why you hold that "to create something out of nothing is to violate the law of identity"? Unless your meaning is the following:

It seems that you might be saying that it is a contradiction because of the definition of the word "create". Your concept/definition of "creation" necessarily implies already existent material to work with. And therefore the "creation" of non-existent material is a contradiction.

Is this an accurate summary of your position here??

If so, I think it misses the point. If you want to contend that the concept "creation" be limited to mean working on pre-existent material, I suppose that's fine. This just means that we need a different word to signify the concept of "bringing previously non-existent things into existence". I was calling it "creation" and trying to make clear that I meant it in a different way than you meant it. But if you would rather use a different term, that's fine. Regardless, since it is being used in radically different respects, it is not a contradiction.

I think that my above comments clear this up. If not, let me know.

If the law of identity was absolutely true, the becoming should be impossible.

[Eiuol]

"logic exists" is not an axiom. But "A is A" is an axiom. And "A is not non-A" is a corollary of this axiom. And Rand's definition of "Logic" is "Non-contradictory identification" which is a short way of saying "application of these two laws of logic". So in THAT way, I believe that "logic" is axiomatic. I'm sure the response will be "application to what?" and the answer is anything and everything.

...

So, how does Oism show that "justice" is valid and "God" is not?

Really any fact about reality is a corollary of those three basic axioms. But really you want to make sure what you're doing logic with actually exists or is valid. The interesting thing about logic is you can do it on even invalid concepts. I could claim that evil leprechauns live in my closet and are invisible. If I don't provide them with three meals a day, they will get angry and break my TV. Therefore, to make sure my TV still works, I should provide these leprechauns with the three meals. Now, that's perfectly logical, and fits the identity of evil leprechauns. There's nothing concrete or real to base this claim on. Even if these leprechauns are invisible and unperceivable, if they exist, there would be something to observe about the results of actions they do.

Presumably your position is that since you observe that actions occur, there must be some force that gets action started. If something acts, it is caused to act. There had to have been some entity to cause the first physical object to act, otherwise there will be no action. Since volitional consciousness is not physical and requires no antecedent action to occur, a consciousness like god explains what gives rise to causality. You also know that volitional consciousness does exist since you are thinking right now, so it would appear you've not invalidated that existence exists.

There are issues with that, though. For one, what exactly is the identity of consciousness? How does it come about? You come to notice consciousness in the first place when you realize that things happen even without acting on those things (that's the perceptual level, the given; you interpret those percepts with your mind and implicitly logic if not contradictory). You differentiate between actions that you cause and actions other forces cause. You'd also notice your consciousness can only cause actions to happen with physical action with body parts. Telepathy is not possible, basically. There's magnetism, which might throw you for a loop, but even that occurs through physical means. You could abstract from there to realize that anything nonphysical is ultimately only possible because of something physical, something concrete. To interact with the world requires physical means. You might not know what that physical something is about consciousness, but as you grow older, you learn that your brain is what makes consciousness possible as a human. Still, at whatever stage of cognitive development, consciousness is always connected to the perceptual level. How could a volitional consciousness without a body do anything, even to allow the first objects to act? I really can't get beyond there to validate god, because it would contradict the identity of consciousness, namely that consciousness alone is not enough for action to occur.

If you'd like some information on how just how "justice" is connected to the perceptual level, here is a blog post on that that I found to be useful. http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2010/11/induction-of-justice.html

Edited December 8, 2010 by Eiuol

[bobgo]

Is it an absolute truth that nothing is absolutely true?

That does not apply here. I'm not saying that everything it's false.

But that I'm not able to affirm about anything that it has to be absolutely true. The mine it’s a necessary doubt.

I understand my mind is not easy to follow. But that has been my way, and still it is, to search for Truth. Following Kant, Nietzsche, Japers and Emanuele Severino.

I am an engineer, but the events of life pushed me studying philosophy.

Now I clearly see how Nihilism is threatening human being.

That is a very dangerous Evil!

And it’s not talking about phantom existence we can fight it. I’m persuaded that only a pure authentic faith in Truth will allow us to defeat it.

If my posts are bothering anybody, please tell me, I’ll stop them.

[Plasmatic]

We really need to get away from special science concepts to validate philosophical subjects. Particularly the nonsense of black holes........

Jacob you need to understand Rands Razor, "concepts ought not be created beyond necessity" (paraphrased)

You agreed that concepts originate in perception and have maintained that other than this necessity is your only other means of gaining knowledge.

How are you, given your premises, going to defend the formation of what you mean by the concept "creation"? Your only recourse with your premesis is perception or necessity ,to remain consist with yourself . (as you know I do not grant your premises but I'm curious...)

Edited December 9, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Bob, are you here out of interest in "god" only? Or do you have an interest in Oisms stance on such concepts? Are you familiar at all with Objectivism?

[Greebo]

We really need to get away from special science concepts to validate philosophical subjects. Particularly the nonsense of black holes........

You're missing the point.

Science provides a plethora of good examples of concept validation. You could use black holes or sub atomic particles or nuclear fission - it doesn't matter. What matters is it illustrates the difference between an arbitrary concept, a plausible concept, and a validated concept, and how a plausible concept becomes a validated one.

Aside: I'm rather amused that you consider black holes nonsense - unless you're thinking about the fantasy black hole gateway to alternate reality idea. To the best of my knowledge, the scientific concept of a black hole as a quantity of mass so densely packed that even light is unable to escape its gravitational influence has been concretely proven. Thus they prove a perfect example of a reality grounded theory becoming a concrete.

[Greebo]

That does not apply here. I'm not saying that everything it's false.

Interesting. Your earlier statement certainly sounded as though you were stating a universal absolute.

Is English not your first language? Because your posts are coming across to me as jumbled nonsense, and yet within them is the hint of a potentially powerfully sharp mind. I'm having trouble deciding if it's a language problem or a rationality problem.

[Plasmatic]

You're missing the point.

Science provides a plethora of good examples of concept validation. You could use black holes or sub atomic particles or nuclear fission - it doesn't matter. What matters is it illustrates the difference between an arbitrary concept, a plausible concept, and a validated concept, and how a plausible concept becomes a validated one.

Aside: I'm rather amused that you consider black holes nonsense - unless you're thinking about the fantasy black hole gateway to alternate reality idea. To the best of my knowledge, the scientific concept of a black hole as a quantity of mass so densely packed that even light is unable to escape its gravitational influence has been concretely proven. Thus they prove a perfect example of a reality grounded theory becoming a concrete.

What has been proven is that most people are unaware of the invalid concepts that underly the mythical infinite density monster called black holes. What has been observed can be explained with plasma physics without such nonsense. There is also mathematical problems at the heart of black hole model.

I'm not interested in debating this at the moment. If your interested in checking these premises I can send you info for your own research

[bobgo]

Bob, are you here out of interest in "god" only? Or do you have an interest in Oisms stance on such concepts? Are you familiar at all with Objectivism?

I'm not familiar with Objectivism. I came here looking for “forum nihilism” on google.

I read “Introducing Objectivism” by Any Rand, a very rational article, and I noticed how it’s showing the point of not return of the rational human being.

To me, those statements make clear the point where rationality has to come.

That will be a crucial point of our evolution.

Because that point has to be existentially lived, after it has been rationally understood. And then, only two possibilities there will be:

1) Nihilism

2) A new metaphysics

Watching the topic about Existence of God, I tried to say what kind of problem we are going to face.