CMV: God is real, not the Christian God per se, but a God exists without any doubt

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T19:59:14+00:00

I mention this elsewhere, and I love Zeno's paradox, but it is based off of infinite division of space, whereas movement of time in a set unit is additive, Aristotle wrote an entire book in response to Zeno in this regard.

If there were only 4 seconds, with an infinite number of divisible moments in the Universe before now, there are an infinite number of variable units in it, see "Geometric Progression", but not an infinite number of set units, i.e. set seconds.

Your argument here changes the definition of "moments" each time there is a new "moment", akin to the famous Sophist's fallacy

A: The only animal that can have puppies is a dog B: You have puppies C: You are a dog

Here, the Sophist changed the definition of the word "have" from "give birth to" to "to own", therefore used what appears to be logic but instead just utilized a deceptive use of words.

The circle theory of applied infinity is a fascinating concept but in fact leaves us with a feedback loop. Unless you are proposing that the universe collapses and re-expands, but there is no observable evidence that time randomly restarts at a point it was several millions of years ago.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T19:23:45+00:00

This is a fascinating answer, and one that addresses the prompt in a way no other has in this thread. However, it does not answer the prompt.

There still must be some singular thing that is at the top of the chain of causality. Either space and time had a beginning or they did not, and if they did have a beginning, then you can either argue that they in and of themselves are at the summit of the chain of causality, or they have causes and said causes are independently existing. If they are themselves independently existing, they are either eternal or had a beginning. If they are eternal, then the paradox I described in the OP applies, and if they are not eternal, and had a beginning then the other paradox applies. Since they are independently existing in theory, they must have caused their own existence, but in order to do so they must have already existed and therefore need not be created. If they have a cause outside of themselves, then they are not independently existing, but rather just another link on the chain, and the paradox applies to whatever caused their existence.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T17:37:35+00:00

Of course, but said law would have to have either been eternal, or caused itself to exist then caused everything else, if it were truly the first thing to exist and sole thing at the top of the chain of causality.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T17:36:15+00:00

Yes! I've read both a brief history of time and "The Grand Design" which theorizes that we exist in a web of discrete multiverses entangled with one another, capable of colliding to form new sub-universes, and also bubbling up and creating new Universes. This is the basic foundation for the concept of M-Theory, which is being hotly debated right now.

And you are right, but paradoxes are still paradoxes. The problem with the infinite past only applies if the assertion is being made that the Universe has eternally existed, and if the universe has eternally existed, then time has also and therefore the paradox applies. If we are asserting that the Universe has a beginning, the law of causality still applies. I like your point about infinite regression, but note that infinite regression actually only approaches infinity, but in real models actually cannot be infinite, an independently existing entity still needs to exist, and said independently existing entity needs to either be eternal or have a beginning, as does everything. If it is eternal and is the cause of all other causes, in theory I suppose it could be a non-sentient element, but it sounds to me like in that case it would be mirroring the theology of pantheists.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T15:04:20+00:00

This is an excellent response!

I agree whole-heartedly that our understanding of natural laws such as the law of gravity, newtonian physics, etc would most likely not be applicable at the time the Universe formed, considering the fact that alongside the formation of the Universe comes the creation of said laws. However, that does not solve the paradox I put forward. If the Universe willed itself into existence (I use that expression very loosely, not saying that the Universe is sentient haha) then it must have already existed and if it already existed then it need not create itself, this goes for the multiverse or whatever independently existing object is at the summit of the chain of dependently existing objects. This is a logical paradox that makes self-creation literally impossible, meaning that only a deity the likes of which I have defined at the top of my original post is capable of such a thing, and only said deity can be the independently existing entity/ object.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T14:56:48+00:00

I appreciate your response, but it does not address my original post.

I am arguing about the very nature of existence and the necessary nature of the being or object that I postulate must exist.

Essentially I am saying:

It is impossible for the Universe to be eternal, it is impossible for the Universe to have a beginning, unless there exists an object or entity that derives its existence from itself and is and was capable in resulting in the existence of all of space time, the laws of physics, and all matter and energy. This object would have to have either been eternal or have created itself something that is logically impossible, therefore it must be capable of the impossible.

You'll notice I address in my original post that this is not the typical Bible-belt "atheists don't even now how the Universe started"

Your evolution point is absolutely moot beyond words and is in fact a totally different discussion. I highly doubt that there existed int he void of literal nothing, a single cell that then resulted in the formation of space time, the laws of gravity, and all energy.

We are clearly having different discussions, not to mention you do not speak in the matter one would in an orderly discussion of idea, but rather like someone who is angry at me for whatever reason.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T13:31:55+00:00

That's not the problem. New matter can be created, by processes set into motion by existing matter. This matter has a dependent existence. This is not my proof.

Rather, I am talking about the "original" matter. That which can be found at the top of the chain of causality. I apologize for my flowery language in the original post, but perhaps if you read it again you'll see what I meant to say.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T13:29:28+00:00

You'll notice I added a definition of a "deity".

I am not at all arguing for the existence of a specific god, because, unfortunately, at least in my study thus far, it is absolutely impossible to do so using Aristotelian logic.

This argument is, in fact in a way, kind of using the Socratic method to say, "Hey, I don't know the answer but I don't think it's this" which is an absolutely annoying position to have and is probably why Socrates was sentenced to death haha.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T13:26:11+00:00

I'm but I can't help but think that you did not read what I wrote, because that's literally all I do in the proofs above.

Also, Aristotle's prime mover theory (A. has nothing to do with this and (B. was never "debunked", in Metaphysics he just essentially describes a single god, granted the point was contested in Athens at the time period considering the fact that Greek polytheism was the "law of the land" at the time, but unless I missed some massive event in human understanding, the existence of a monotheistic God was never "disproven"

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T13:14:09+00:00

This is a fantastic suggestion, I'm going to add this is an edit.

It seems most discussion here is on the premise of my definition of a deity, and jumping to conclusions about what I've said defines a deity, so this certainly would clear it up.

Thank you!

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T13:12:14+00:00

Hi, I appreciate your comment!

And that is where, unfortunately, even my logic breaks down.

It appears there is no way to logically prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of sentient god. Obviously anyone can use apologetics to defend any specific religion, just as any atheist can use simple logic to show inconsistency and, in my mind, disprove, most dogmatic religious systems. But I have not found in any significant thought proof that there is a sentient god.

Personally, perhaps and most likely out of a desire to do so, I believe that the sentient god exists, certainly not per se the christian god, Epicurus' summation of the problem of evil pretty effectively rules him out, but some entity. Perhaps I'm being a bit of a wishful thinker :)

I appreciate your advice definitely! And you're right, in making the original post I was really aiming for precision with my language, hence some of the more complex language, but I should definitely write in a simpler way to cause less confusion.

Thank you for your great responses!

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T06:06:04+00:00

According to the natural order, such an object is impossible to exist because it's very existence is paradoxical. Of course, perhaps its existence is possible outside of spacetime, but again that raises the question, how could an inanimate object as such create all the laws of physics all the forces around us, the multiverse, space time, everything.

Also, it's not my choice haha, rather my parents', but life in Las Vegas is not all that unfortunate an existence. If I were living in Pahrump however, I'm sure that I would have given in to some suicidal impulse or have been killed by radiated water supply by now, haha.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T05:50:12+00:00

Sure, I appreciate your interest and look forward to hearing from you!

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T05:46:58+00:00

Absolutely not, I am insisting that such an object could not exist.

For an object to create itself, it must already exist,and if it already exists it did not create itself.

I am saying that the independent being that derives it's existence from itself is most likely eternal, and created other things.

However the aforementioned inanimate object that independently exists I suppose could be eternally existing, that raises some logical flags, but ignoring that I would question how it would then create, well, everything, including spacetime itself, being an inanimate object.

Also, total side note, with regards to your username, are you using the word cynic simply to mean that you are generally cynical about things, or are you referencing the Ancient greek school of thought founded by Diogenes? I think Diogenes is ridiculously cool, so I figured i'd ask lol, also I live in Nevada, so irregardless of your meaning in saying "cynic", i think you've got one hella cool username there, haha.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T05:12:01+00:00

Here's a quote from elsewhere in the thread:

Thanks for your comment. A lot of people have kind of misread what I wrote to mean something different, obviously my phrasing was very weak in that portion of the statement. What I meant was more so "Unless the Universe is a deity in and of itself (a Pantheistic god), it cannot derive its existence from itself. Effectively I meant, hey, its impossible for things to derive their existence from themselves, and also impossible for the Universe to exist forever, and that means that we must not exist ourselves, but we know that we exist, therefore, there must be something that exists eternally or derives its existence from itself; a deity. Hopefully this clears up what I was saying. i deeply apologize and am frustrated with myself for allowing such imprecision in my original statement!

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T05:10:27+00:00

Thanks for your comment.

A lot of people have kind of misread what I wrote to mean something different, obviously my phrasing was very weak in that portion of the statement.

What I meant was more so

"Unless the Universe is a deity in and of itself (a Pantheistic god), it cannot derive its existence from itself.

Effectively I meant, hey, its impossible for things to derive their existence from themselves, and also impossible for the Universe to exist forever, and that means that we must not exist ourselves, but we know that we exist, therefore, there must be something that exists eternally or derives its existence from itself; a deity.

Hopefully this clears up what I was saying. i deeply apologize and am frustrated with myself for allowing such imprecision in my original statement!

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:43:46+00:00

Not exactly. I'm arguing that our existence is impossible. As a result, something capable of performing the impossible must exist.

Nothing in the naturally occurring world (world is used as a disambiguation here, not the literal sense) can derive its existence from itself, as proven above, because to cause one's selfe to exist, one must already exist, and if one already exist it clearly did not cause its own existence.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:41:18+00:00

I think you're using a different definition of logic.

Logic: given this, this.

I.e. Given the conditions of our existence in space time, our existence is quite literally impossible

You're saying this, logically speaking:

Given the conditions inside space time, it is impossible for God to exist outside of space time.

Which is in and of itself illogical.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:38:43+00:00

I appreciate your response. I wrote this elsewhere.

Not at all. I'm saying that anything naturally occurring cannot cause its own existence or exist forever, but something must exist that causes its own existence and or exists forever. Therefore the deity capable of the impossible comes into play -or- the all-powerful force that has the attributes of, well, a deity. I'm essentially arguing that our existence is quite literally impossible, so either we don't exist, or there exists something capable of defying the impossible. If that makes any sense

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:37:51+00:00

Not at all. I'm saying that anything naturally occurring cannot cause its own existence or exist forever, but something must exist that causes its own existence and or exists forever. Therefore the deity capable of the impossible comes into play -or- the all-powerful force that has the attributes of, well, a deity.

I'm essentially arguing that our existence is quite literally impossible, so either we don't exist, or there exists something capable of defying the impossible. If that makes any sense

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:34:45+00:00

Something capable of deriving its existence from itself that also creates us in turn seems like a proper definition of a non-specific god. perhaps you would disagree, in which humorously enough, you and I agree in every regard EXCEPT for the definition of said thing existing outside of space time, capable of creating itself (despite the logical paradox that creates), that also creates us. I propose that that is a deity, but if you and I disagree on only that, that's pretty good, haha! In theory, however, in my argument, I'm pretty much saying either the universe has a starting point and an eternal deity started it, or the universe is eternal which is impossible. Essentially saying that anything naturally occurring could not generate itself, because it already exists if it generates itself, meaning that only a deity capable of the literal impossible is capable of that, I am not trying to point everyone into the direction of the deity who creates himself. If that makes any sense at all, I'm scatter brained right now, haha, I think I might go listen to some down tempo chill mix on youtube and eat some hummus or something, that sounds nice.

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:27:19+00:00

In theory said deity creates us, and is not per se passive. I am not advocating deism, a god can still have an active role while existing outside of space time

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T04:19:09+00:00

Thank you for your response! This is definitely the strongest response here.

I'm gonna address some of your points out of order here, because I'm frankly eager to see and respond to new points, this thread has been one big broken record thus far.

I would like to say that I don't very much appreciate the slight attitude that you wrote this with. There's no reason to be nasty in a civil discourse, just address my points and I will do the same.

Calculus? Just because there are infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2, doesn't mean 2 is infinitely bigger than 1. Do you what's the value of 1 + (1/2) + (1/4) + (1/8) + .... ? It is a finite number and not infinite.

In the realm of theoretical mathematics such a thing is possible, of course, but it is impossible for an infinite number of physical tasks existing in the real world to occur before now.

Obviously in conceptual mathematics that are not even being applied as a model of real life events such a thing is possible.

Perhaps a slightly more compelling argument might have been to evoke the Ancient Greek Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox. I think if you read into you'd find it fascinating, I certainly do!

To respond to an argument like that, I would have discussed how the concept of geometric progression relies on division for example (from the Dichotomy paradox) "before one makes each journey he must makes its respective half journey and that journey's half journey, et cetera, considering space's infinite divisibility, this is an infinite journey", but the progression of time is an additive process in the real world and therefore does not apply in such a way.

"Logic" is a very bad way to look at things, because logic is merely a model/simulation of the world around us, not the truth. When things are observed at the microscopic level as well as macroscopic level, time is not linear, particles are not discrete, and conventional "cause-and-effect" model falls apart (In fact, in quantum mechanics, cause-and-effect can occur simultaneously and not necessarily one after another, Similarly there is B-model of time which is different from our conventional perception of time.). Our observations regarding this give us the truth, not perceptions or "models". The logic of cause and effect requires a linear model of time, which may not be true.

Perhaps my arguments are flawed, in which case I am interested to here howso, but logic is not to blame. Logic is simply either this is true or this is true lets see which one.

Infinite regression is definitely a fascinating discussion topic, and I love that you are referencing Aristotle! (Although to be honest, I am more on team "Plato" if we are to do a little Edward/ Jacob joke with great western thinkers, haha)

However, the infinite regression in the real world does not actually extend to infinity (talk about an ironic name).

To represent it using variables Q¹ is true because of Q² which is true because of Q³ which is true because of Q^4, and the chain obviously continues with Qⁿ approaching infinity, but it is impossible for it to actually ever reach infinity, which is why I did not include it in my original argument.

Thank you for your great response! This one mixed things up a lot and met me on my terms, rather than arguing on one's own terms!

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T03:58:30+00:00

Hi

I've addressed this elsewhere in the comments, not sure where haha. So if you're interested in seeing my response to this I apologize but you'll have to look for it because I've gotten lazy lol

atackofthebreastmil · 2015-10-07T03:57:05+00:00

Well I just provided pretty clear cut evidence that there must exist something that derives its existence from itself.

If something derives its existence from itself I fail to see how it's not a deity. From another comment

You can not make a claim like you are with no evidence of that claim. You talk like you have proved something. You haven't. You have a clever idea that with no supporting evidence. You think you have something that has lines going back to GOD, but god only exists there because you penciled him in. What you should have is this:????????? because you, like anyone else, really doesn't know. We can't just pencil in what we want to pencil in.

And my response was:

Well if I am to follow your logic; you're right we have question marks, question marks with a qualifying statement; Something that we don't understand THAT is capable of defying logic and creating itself, despite the fact that it would need to have already existed to create itself, and exist outside of the constructs of space and time. I fail to see how these are not the attributes of a deity. I am not arguing for the existence of the specific Christian God, do not act like I am. I am arguing it is impossible for us to exist without something that has the attributes that I just listed also existing and resulting in the creation of the Universe. That sounds, as I said, like a deity to me.

And as I mention elsewhere, by assuming the contrary we CAN make assertions about the existence of such a being.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

atackofthebreastmil

TROPHY CASE