Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like pantheism. Well, that neatly does away with the insistence on a Creator, of course.
PanENtheism . . . and you are wrong . . . Creation still occurred and must be explained. You can help Konraden out and provide the logical syllogisms that lead from premises of non-life and non-intelligence to life and intelligence.
I'm using we in the sense of "everything" because these the bare-ass definition of it, "existence exists" itself is tautological. That's really only the assertion you can make, existence. The entities confined to existence is where we begin with our definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You asked for definition, Konraden . . . how the hell do you establish a definition without affirming the consequents of it. Your logic is as deficient as your insight.
Perhaps by affirming the antecedent instead.
If creator, than creation.
Creator,
Therefore, Creation.
Affirming the consequent defines existence as a creation, which demands a creator--logical fallacy.
Affirming the antecedent defines a creator, which logically follows a creation.
If P, Q.
P,
Therefore Q.
Quote:
There exists "something"...the empirical evidence is that matter and energy does, in fact, exist.
Creation. = Q
Quote:
We also KNOW OBJECTIVELY that "something" has the ability to further create, to establish the "laws" that control that which it has created, and it even provides what is necessary to maintain and sustain that creation.
Creator = P.
Quote:
These are the KNOWN ATTRIBUTES of that "something"...not "speculated", not "believed", but objective and definitive, SCIENTIFICALLY proven attributes.
P.
Quote:
The basic attributes known to define a "God"...is to be able to create, control, maintain, and sustain matter and energy, completely through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force.
Q.
That's pretty cut and dry, Mystic.
Quote:
Who the hell said anything about special Creation. Your qualification that reality is independeent of the observer is not established and cannot be.
If you were to not exist, the fact remains the ground you stand on would still exist. Existence independent of the observer.
Quote:
We are part and parcel of it all.
Agreed. We are part of existence. But if I was not to be part of existence, that doesn't negate that "stuff" exists separate of my existence.
[qupte]Well then . . . you should be very comfortable since all you've done is weasel around inferring and adding your own qualifiers to GldnRule's efforts to comply with your request for a definition. There is no need for independence, period.The attempt to get to the "turtles all the way down" infinite regress is juvenile.[/quote]
I'm saying this is getting into weasel territory because Glnd undoubtedly means "everything" which includes dark-matter and dark-energy, which you dubiously abuse for your own God of the Gaps purposes. I'm waiting for you to jump in on that part, so we can start this cycle all over again. Last time I had you define god, you explicitely defined god as creating nature, then later defined god as being equal to nature. Autocreation!
Quote:
What exists exists and needs no further explanation whether or not you call it nature, God ,
Stop. It matters very much as to what you call it because in society, our means of communication is pretty much everything. Without common definitions--socially accepted ones--we can't meaningfully communicate. This is why it is important that we agree on what to call any one thing.
Gldn did more than just define, but also made an argument. And then proceeded on a slew of logical fallacies.
Quote:
everything that exists or . . . whatever. But to deny the ongoing control, creation, maintenance, sustenance, etc. is ludicrous.
Control of matter? Creation of matter? Sure, we could end up agreeing on these eventually, but we tend to differ on "what" controls or creates, which is why having rigid acceptable definitions is necessary.
Quote:
If you can produce the logical syllogisms that can produce intelligence or life from premises of non-intelligence and non-life . . . I will cede your logical prowess.
Physics. Chemistry. Biology.
Quote:
Until then stop spewing fallacy nonsense and pretending your position is logical or that you have any logical basis for any of it. The attempt to impose a "supernatural" character to God
In order to exist, something must be physical. Anything physical is part of the natural world. In order to create the natural world, something must be supernatural--above nature. Above existence. Above the physical. There is no such thing. Your god creates the natural world. I.E., supernatural by definition.
Quote:
is likewise childish as it is only part of some "beliefs about" God . . . not part of God's existence. There is no such thing as supernatural. God is ALL in ALL, period. Who appointed you editor-in-chief of the forum, Konraden? Your self-importance is showing.
And hence what separates nature from your god. Nature exists. We can show that. Something that "creates" nature has not been shown. Our current knowledge leaves us with an ever present nature--more or less.
If you were to not exist, the fact remains the ground you stand on would still exist. Existence independent of the observer.
Agreed. We are part of existence. But if I was not to be part of existence, that doesn't negate that "stuff" exists separate of my existence.
Clearly you are deliberately being disingenuous. Definition is NOT argument . . . so stuff your logical fallacies where the Sun doesn't shine. We are not talking about me or you being independent of existence . . . you are asserting that God must be . . . or your "Nature" . . . since they are indistinguishable. Does that make your absurd assertions clearer?
Quote:
Quote:
Well then . . . you should be very comfortable since all you've done is weasel around inferring and adding your own qualifiers to GldnRule's efforts to comply with your request for a definition. There is no need for independence, period.The attempt to get to the "turtles all the way down" infinite regress is juvenile.
I'm saying this is getting into weasel territory because Glnd undoubtedly means "everything" which includes dark-matter and dark-energy, which you dubiously abuse for your own God of the Gaps purposes. I'm waiting for you to jump in on that part, so we can start this cycle all over again. Last time I had you define god, you explicitely defined god as creating nature, then later defined god as being equal to nature. Autocreation!
Not true . . . I said God's consciousness is the Source (Universal field) that establishes our reality (your Nature, universe, whatever). Everything that exists contributes to the procreation and maintenance of that consciousness (Universal field).
Quote:
Stop. It matters very much as to what you call it because in society, our means of communication is pretty much everything. Without common definitions--socially accepted ones--we can't meaningfully communicate. This is why it is important that we agree on what to call any one thing.
Control of matter? Creation of matter? Sure, we could end up agreeing on these eventually, but we tend to differ on "what" controls or creates, which is why having rigid acceptable definitions is necessary.
Then stop applying argumentation logic to the definition.
Quote:
Physics. Chemistry. Biology.
You DO know what a logic syllogism IS, right . . . these do not qualify. Much as you do not want to acknowledge it . . . there is no way to logically get from a reality without life or intelligence to one with both! So logic has nothing to do with your position.
Quote:
In order to exist, something must be physical. Anything physical is part of the natural world. In order to create the natural world, something must be supernatural--above nature. Above existence. Above the physical. There is no such thing. Your god creates the natural world. I.E., supernatural by definition.
And hence what separates nature from your god. Nature exists. We can show that. Something that "creates" nature has not been shown. Our current knowledge leaves us with an ever present nature--more or less.
This is YOUR view . . . not mine. First "physical" is an illusion of our sensory system. It is all vibratory energy forms of the same essence (God). None of your assumptions or assertions apply to BEING the natural world (God) that creates all the sub-forms that comprise its life processes . . . just as you create all your cells that comprise you. There is no separation . . . so since your god "Nature" exists so does mine using the exact same evidence. You have failed to establish ANY distinguishing features that separate yours from mine.
This is akin to active disbelief in Zeus, Thor, Spaghetti Monsters, and boogie men. Concepts so asinine they don't require active disbelief to reject them outright.
I don't reject them outright. I admit that they are as plausible as any other belief. I can neither confirm nor deny them.
We undeniably exist. That's the only thing you can say. Anything beyond that gets increasingly more specific with various definitions, some contradicting others.
It's impossible to be certain of our own existence. We may not, in fact, exist. And without some kind of force acting on the system, there is no way we possibly COULD exist, so we probably don't, in point of fact.
It is more likely that we do not exist than it is that we do.
Clearly you are deliberately being disingenuous. Definition is NOT argument . . . so stuff your logical fallacies where the Sun doesn't shine.
Re-read the post Glnd made. There is an argument being made.
Quote:
We are not talking about me or you being independent of existence . . . you are asserting that God must be . . . or your "Nature" . . . since they are indistinguishable. Does that make your absurd assertions clearer?
The claims you make are that "god is everything" but this is too vague a description. When you specify your definitions, you explicitly claim something that creates "all that exists", which itself begs the question of a creator--your god. There is a distinction between things that exist in the physical world, and things that create that which exist.
In order to exist, things must be physical. Etc.
Quote:
Not true . . . I said God's consciousness is the Source (Universal field) that establishes our reality (your Nature, universe, whatever). Everything that exists contributes to the procreation and maintenance of that consciousness (Universal field).
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.
Quote:
Then stop applying argumentation logic to the definition.
I didn't. The definition was presented as an argument, not as a definition.
Quote:
You DO know what a logic syllogism IS, right . . . these do not qualify.
Biology, physics, and chemistry provide the methods for providing life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence. You're the once claiming "turles all the way down" with your claim that intelligence must stem from intelligence, or life from life. That is a destroyed creationist argument.
Quote:
Much as you do not want to acknowledge it . . . there is no way to logically get from a reality without life or intelligence to one with both!
Considering our humble beginnings as little more than a soup of various elements and 14 billion years later the power of human ingenuity brought us the capability to communicate over vast distances at near the speed of light? I'd say that's intelligence from a universe without it.
Also, Special Creation. If you want to claim the universe is intelligent, you can't do so without first explaining how it is intelligent if itself has no intelligence to create it. Again, a completely destroyed creationist argument. You talk about wanting to shortcut the turtles analogy, but if you continue to argue this crap, that's all your going to get.
:Reality:
Natural World <-- Verifiable to exist.
God(s) <-- Not verifiable to exist, ergo, no reason to accept existence claim.
:Your Fantasy:
Natural World <-- Verifiable to exist
God(s) <--Verifiable to exist
??? <-- "Who cares, I don't have time for turtles all the way down"
This is why your arguments are ridiculous and hypocritical.
Quote:
So logic has nothing to do with your position. This is YOUR view . . . not mine. First "physical" is an illusion of our sensory system.
Physical is something of relation to physics. I don't see how you can claim existence as being a perception of the sensory system.
Quote:
It is all vibratory energy forms of the same essence (God). None of your assumptions or assertions apply to BEING the natural world (God) that creates all the sub-forms that comprise its life processes . . . just as you create all your cells that comprise you. There is no separation . . . so since your god "Nature" exists so does mine using the exact same evidence. You have failed to establish ANY distinguishing features that separate yours from mine.
I don't reject them outright. I admit that they are as plausible as any other belief. I can neither confirm nor deny them.
Many of the god claims and concepts of the past 10,000 years are equally asinine and are not accepted. There is no active disbelief amongst many atheists of today's gods as there are of the several thousand of yesteryear's gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
It's impossible to be certain of our own existence. We may not, in fact, exist. And without some kind of force acting on the system, there is no way we possibly COULD exist, so we probably don't, in point of fact.
It is more likely that we do not exist than it is that we do.
A simple question with a complex answer could solve this.
Many of the god claims and concepts of the past 10,000 years are equally asinine and are not accepted. There is no active disbelief amongst many atheists of today's gods as there are of the several thousand of yesteryear's gods.
A simple question with a complex answer could solve this.
Is it possible for matter to not exist
If matter can neither be created or destroyed, then it could never have existed to begin with.
I'll let Huffenhardt fight his own battles, but this statement is an argument of semantics. You equivocate the separate definitions of "nature" and "God," and claim them as the same. When the definitions are explicitly separate, you simply can't make this argument. God cannot create God--it's tautological.
God and Nature are most likely overlapping pieces. God created nature, so nature is a part of Him just as a mother creates a son and her son is a part of her. When I say "a part of" I don't mean they're literally the same thing, but that part of the mother (her DNA) are literally inside her son. God creates nature and imbues a part of Himself into nature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
