There seems to be almost universal agreement among theists and atheists that a God either exists, or not, one or the other. We might be suspicious of the fact that this widely shared assumption appears to be taken as an obvious given which requires no examination. — Jake

Well said. And we might asks exists how? Presumably not like an asteroid. If God is a 'spirit,' then this already suggest some strange mode of existence. What did those early writers have in mind? Probably lots of different things, and probably nothing quite exact. Chances are that they were calling some part of the experience God.

If we were to examine reality without the burden of this blind assumption, we might see that the vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales, space, does not fit neatly in to a tidy simplistic dualistic "exists or not" paradigm.

Thus, it's at least possible that the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon may not accurately represent reality, which if true, tends to turn the entire God debate in to a big pile of pointless rubbish. — Jake

Exactly. The idea that existence is a singled-meaning predicate that switches on and off seems very questionable. That kind of crude, binary understanding may even mostly exist because it makes a certain game possible.

Upon seeing this, some people may wash their hands of the God debate and turn their attention to other matters. This seems a reasonable choice. Other people may choose to dump the questionable "exists or not" assumption and then continue a God investigation on that basis. This seems a reasonable choice too. — Jake

Indeed. Hegel and others seem to be in the second category.

Most people will ignore all of the above because they've memorized a collection of beliefs and arguments which they use to publicly inflate their ego, and they don't want this fun game spoiled by some party pooper. Ok, I suppose this is reasonable too, but perhaps not all that interesting. — Jake

Nice. I think you just described quite a few philosophical issues.

I would settle for just an end of arrogance of ones position, an end to sarcasm as tactic, and a significant increase in respect for each other's reasonable beliefs. — Rank Amateur

This is the answer I had in mind. For me, it represents the right perspective.

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. — Pattern-chaser


But the children's merry-go-round to nowhere nature of the debate can be proven, yes? — Jake

It's so nice to meet an incurable optimist. :wink:

It's so nice to meet an incurable optimist. — Pattern-chaser

Well, I am an optimist on this matter, in that I feel the God debate could potentially serve a useful purpose. I am an optimist in that I feel the God debate has delivered useful information.

I would admit that I'm a bit of a pessimist in that there's not a lot of evidence many people are all that interested in that information. But, this lack of interest tends to deliver even more useful information, so....

I have my own argument, but I will save it.

What if God both exists and does not exist?

The Nature of the Monad is reflected in Pythagoreanism most likely due to his travels rumored towards India, however the evidence for this is controversial, but it reflects variations to Parmenides Holism and the Eastern Philosophies schools of Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, Shuddhadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Dvaita, Achintya Bheda Abheda, as well as a number of Chinese Philosopher's I cannot count.


This concept of the Monad, in a pluralistic state as Monads, observes the Monad in a multiplicious form under the term atom where this multiplicity is founded in an inherent dualism as opposing forces resulting in multiple localized states in continual flux: Epicureus, Anaxarchus, Democritus, Leucippus, Metrodorus of Chios, Nausiphanes, Heraclitus, Liebniz, etc. as well as a list of eastern schools too long to count.


This concept of God as Both 1 and Many is reflected in a trinitarian concept universally observed in many religions:

Many world religions contain triple deities or concepts of trinity, including:

the Hindu Trimurti
the Hindu Tridevi
the Three Jewels of Buddhism
the Three Pure Ones of Taoism
the Christian Holy Trinity
the Triple Goddess of Wicca

The Shield of the Trinity is a diagram of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity
Christianity

The threefold office of Christ is a Christian doctrine that Christ performs the functions of prophet, priest, and king.
The ministry of Jesus lasted approximately three years (27–30 AD[citation needed]).
During the Agony in the Garden, Christ asked three times for the chalice to be taken from his lips.
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his death (Sunday, April 9, 30 AD).
The devil tempted Jesus three times.
Saint Peter thrice denied Jesus and thrice affirmed his faith in Jesus
The Magi – wise men who were astronomers/astrologers from Persia[citation needed] – gave Jesus three gifts.
There are three Synoptic Gospels and three epistles of John.
Paul the Apostle went blind for three days after his conversion to Christianity.

Judaism

Noah had three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth
The Three Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
The prophet Balaam beat his donkey three times.
The prophet Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a large fish
Three divisions of the Written Torah: Torah (Five Book of Moses), Nevi'im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings)[8]
Three divisions of the Jewish people: Kohen, Levite, Yisrael
Three daily prayers: Shacharit, Mincha, Maariv
Three Shabbat meals
Shabbat ends when three stars are visible in the night sky[9]
Three Pilgrimage Festivals: Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot
Three matzos on the Passover Seder table[10]
The Three Weeks, a period of mourning bridging the fast days of Seventeenth of Tammuz and Tisha B'Av
Three cardinal sins for which a Jew must die rather than transgress: idolatry, murder, sexual immorality[11]
Upsherin, a Jewish boy's first haircut at age 3[12]
A Beth din is composed of three members
Potential converts are traditionally turned away three times to test their sincerity[13]
In the Jewish mystical tradition of the Kabbalah, it is believed that the soul consists of three parts, with the highest being neshamah ("breath"), the middle being ruach ("wind" or "spirit") and the lowest being nefesh ("repose").[14] Sometimes the two elements of Chayah ("life" or "animal") and Yechidah ("unit") are additionally mentioned.
In the Kabbalah, the Tree of Life (Hebrew: Etz ha-Chayim, עץ החיים) refers to a latter 3-pillar diagrammatic representation of its central mystical symbol, known as the 10 Sephirot.

Buddhism

The Triple Bodhi (ways to understand the end of birth) are Budhu, Pasebudhu, and Mahaarahath.
The Three Jewels, the three things that Buddhists take refuge in.

Shinto

The Imperial Regalia of Japan of the sword, mirror, and jewel.

Daoism

The Three Treasures (Chinese: 三寶; pinyin: sānbǎo; Wade–Giles: san-pao), the basic virtues in Taoism.
The Three Dantians
Three Lines of a Trigram
Three Sovereigns: Heaven Fu Xi (Hand – Head – 3º Eye), Humanity Shen Nong (Unit 69), Hell Nüwa (Foot – Abdomen – Umbiculus).

Hinduism

The Trimurti: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer.
The three Gunas found in Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy.[15]
The three paths to salvation in the Bhagavad Gita named Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga.

Zoroastrianism

The three virtues of Humata, Hukhta and Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds) are a basic tenet in Zoroastrianism.

Norse mythology

Three is a very significant number in Norse mythology, along with its powers 9 and 27.

Prior to Ragnarök, there will be three hard winters without an intervening summer, the Fimbulwinter.
Odin endured three hardships upon the World Tree in his quest for the runes: he hanged himself, wounded himself with a spear, and suffered from hunger and thirst.
Bor had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Vé.

Other religions

The Wiccan Rule of Three.
The Triple Goddess: Maiden, Mother, Crone; the three fates.
The sons of Cronus: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.
The Slavic god Triglav has three heads.

Esoteric tradition

The Theosophical Society has three conditions of membership.
Gurdjieff's Three Centers and the Law of Three.
Liber AL vel Legis, the central scripture of the religion of Thelema, consists of three chapters, corresponding to three divine narrators respectively: Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
The Triple Greatness of Hermes Trismegistus is an important theme in Hermeticism.


Wikipedia: 3




Now this nature of unity and multiplicity is premised in the foundation of all being fundamentally being directed movement, with this directed movement occurs through a process of repitition or "mirroring" where the movement itself as a constant is reflected through a variety of phenomenon both abstract and empirical. This repitition of these common limits, allows for not just continuity but an inherent connection where symmetry in form and function necessitates a form of unity.

We can see the circle represented in:


1. Pythagorean Monad / Hindu Bindhu.
2. Sun and/or moon Worship in Various Cultures, observed with the Egyptian Aten.
3. Presocratic and Socratic emphasis on the Divinity of the circle.
4. Stonehenge
5. Taoism
6. Muslim Dome of the Rock
7. Circle dance of many cultures, specifically Jewish culture and 3rd world tribes.
8. Philosophers such as Hall, or the Occult book the Kybalion.
9. The 24 philosophers definition of God, with one as sphere.
10. Marcus Aruellius meditations.
11. Platonism
12. Book of Ezekiel Wheels within Wheels
13. The golden rule / "you reap as you sow".
14. Reincarnation
15. Moderation as cycling of extremes.
16. Nichmachean ethics.
17. Ecclesiastes "For everything their is a season".
18. Moral reciprocation (to give x is to receive x)

This is further reflected in natural and artificial phenomena.

1. Orbit of planets and stars.
2. Atoms
3. Circulatory, Respiratory and Nervous system.
4. Alternating current.
5. Seasons and weather patterns of nature.
6. Migratory patterns of birds.
7. Hunting/foraging patterns of wolves, deer, Turkey, etc.
8. Ocean currents
9. Reproduction as cycling of genetic material.
10. Movement of water to clouds to rain.
11. Alternation of emotions.
12. Personal habits
13. Standard conversations.
14. Wheels
15. Flying Saucers
16. Various dance and martial art moves.
17. Cycling action of semi automatic weapons.
18. Ball/puck/marbles
19. Various sports.
20. Mirror Effect in psychology.
21. Eyes, breasts, buttocks, various facets of human body, specifically female. Joint movement.
22. Economic exchange in cultures and between cultures.
23. Alternation of common traits amidst various people (personalities, physical traits)
24. Evolution.
25. Genome.
26. Political Spin.
27. Revolver, rolling, bullet spin.
28. Centrifuge.
29. Gyroscope.
30. Movements of elements.
31. Tornado, whirlwind, whirlpool.
32. Forms of liquids, solids, and gases.
33. Bipolar disorder.
34. Multiple personality disorder.
35. Various rolls for meals or desert.
36. Etc.

X. ALL triads, dualisms, and monads.

To cycle back to the premises:

1. Isomorphism in math and logic.
2. Godel's incompleteness theorems
3. ALL definitons in dictionary cycling back to previous defintion.
4. Addition and multiplication.
5. Wittgenstein observation of sets.
6. Subject-predicate looping in paragraphs.
7. Noun verb alternation in paragraphs.
8. binary code
9. Word through word as sentence, sentence through sentence as paragraph, paragraph through paragraph as page, page as page through book, book through book as volume with all cycling back to words.
10. ALL numbers as cycling of 1, 2 and or 3.
11. ALL languages looping through each other.
12. Set through set, definition through definition, concept through concept, etc.
13. Etc.

What if God both exists and does not exist? — eodnhoj7

Then you're equivocating?

What if God both exists and does not exist? — eodnhoj7

sounds more like the start of the God debate than the end of the God debate. :)

sounds more like the start of the God debate than the end of the God debate. — Rank Amateur

Sounds to me more like the God debate would finally be getting somewhere. That is, folks would finally be inspecting and challenging some of the "taken to be an obvious given" assumptions that have had the God debate going endlessly round and round in a small circle to nowhere.

If God is both being and none being, with God being the equivocation of being and non being, the by default God is defined as equivocation.

We are left with observing the nature of equivocation, from the framework of logic, as a fallacy where 1 exists as many and many as one considering the fallacy of equivocation is a fallacy where many definitions are equated to one.

However, the fallacy of equivocation is left with its own cancelation (as the fallacy of equivocation has multiple definitions) into just equivocation as being a constant.

Equivocation is a continuum in these respects, where all definitions of God as equivalent show them as one continuous definition of God. In a separating respect, these equivocation resulting in multiple definitions of God observes equivocation as formless where what is equivalent is separate and equivocation is reducing to a point of inversion of unity/multiplicity.

Where God exists as equivocation, God is one and many.

If God is both being and none being, with God being the equivocation of being and non being, the by default God is defined as equivocation. — eodnhoj7

Equivocation is a semantic issue, and a fallacious one when used in an argument. You're saying that God is a semantic issue? (That's just the first problem with that.)

True,

We are left with God as the third variable of this dualism, being/nonbeing, as existing as both and neither. God as both takes on a nature of synthesis, or "joining" reminscient of Hegel, Pythagorean concept of three, Socratic dialogue (resulting in plato/aristotle), reproductive natural law, etc.

Joining observes many as one, hence God as synthetic is God as 1 with 1 being active synthesis. God exists as an active continuous state of synthesis.

Considering this synthesis is continual, God is neither synthetic nor not synthetic as this continuuity to synthesis necessitates something beyond synthesis as a cause of synthesis.

So synthesis as a form of joining through multiplicity is caused by structure for all deterministic cause are an observation of structure. Structure is cause, as a cause of syntheis for all synthesis occurs through percicevably separate structures as the self cancellation of void.

I will address at some other time considering some restraints, but
Equivocation is not an issue of language, but measurement and definition that lends itself to problems in all schools of thought.

Equivocation is not an issue of language, but measurement and definition — eodnhoj7

"Definition" is a linguistic issue.

Equivocation is using a word in two different senses as if you're NOT changing senses, and it's particularly a problem when you're presenting an argument as if a sense of a term is consistent rather than referring to two different things.

Equivocation is using a word in two different senses as if you're NOT changing senses, and it's particularly a problem when you're presenting an argument as if a sense of a term is consistent rather than referring to two different things. — Terrapin Station

Except that reality doesn't seem to care all that much about all this little human reason stuff. The overwhelming vast majority of reality is space, which can not definitively be said to exist or not exist, one or the other. Whatever space is, it doesn't seem to fit neatly in to the tidy little categories our minds create.

Space is simply the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter. So it definitely exists.

How much does space weigh?

Space is the foundation for everything. From these terms we can equate all phenomenon, both abstractions and physical phenomenon, as spatial. The question of space in turn breaks down to directed movement, for everything we understand about being occurs through:

1. Movement as a form of repetition, where a phenomenon replicates itself given a specific framework with the framework acting as a replicating phenonemon, observes an inherent multiplicity as the foundation for a phenomena.

2. This replication of phenomena, as movement through multiplicity, occurs if and only if directed; hence replication occurs through direction.

3. Infinite replication, as directed movement, gives foundation to consistency where movement at a rate of infinity becomes effectively still. An example would be a wheel spinning at the rate of infinity appearing still.

4. Space as unified would be infinite movement, where any perceivable change would be space folding through space as space. Space can effectively replicate itself considering space exists relative to other space. What differs one spatial limit from another is its rate of movement. However if space is composed of infinite movement as no movement, we are left with one infinity inverting to multiple infinities.

5. The question is how can a space change to further space, or rather how can space multiply if space is space. A unified space inverting to multiple space, as multiple rates of movement with one infinity being greater than another, necessitates this inversion of space as directed movement being a form of change in itself.

6. So 1 space inverting to another space observes space as nothing. This nothingness, where space inverts to further space, observe void voiding itself under its own nature.

7. Nothing cancels itself out into directed movement where this directed movement encapsulates nothingness. Considering nothing cannot be observed as it does not exists except as the inversion of unity, what we see is multiple spaces with matter being atoms as 0d point space inverting to further point space.

8. Hence space as directed movement would be equivalent to ether, with void observe the ether as 1d point space directed towards eachother.

9. Space is determined by its directional qualities where space as void, is strictly multiplicity as various rates of infinity.

10. An infinity closest to point 0, or space continually individuating, would be matter.


Thought would be the quickest of movements followed by matter as a lower degree of the same space.

Definition occurs through the separation and connection of phenomena, by

the phenomena directing away from its origins into a new phenomena (seperation).

Or multiple phenomena directed towards eachother as eachother (connection).


This act of definition occurin g though language is not limited to language itself.

And what is matter but mass (formlessness), volume (form as formlessness being directed) and density (volume and mass interwoven)?

The matter paradox, still breaks down to a question of form and no form, directed movement and multiple directed movement.

Can this be the end of the God debate? — BrianW

So how's that coming along? I predict the end of the God debate is not just around the corner.

For now, I'll settle for just playing my part. This is not an easy nut to crack.

There is no "formless" matter. It has mass, but isn't "formless mass," which isn't coherent.

Definition occurs through the separation and connection of phenomena, — eodnhoj7

Say what? Do you mean that you're describing how individuals think about something when forwarding a definition?

It's a relation. Relations exist but don't necessarily weigh anything. It supervenient. Again, it's the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter.

Relations exist but don't necessarily weigh anything. — Terrapin Station

Doesn't meet definition of existence.

What definition of existence do you think things need to meet and why do you think things need to meet the definition in question? Who came up with the definition you're using, and why would we follow suit?

Mass is with out form. It is measured according to its resistance to acceleration (accelation occurs through direction as an object cannot accelerate without direction) with this acceleration giving it form through volume. Mass as formed through volume observes the acceleration of the mass as volume necessitates volume as having mass.

The gravitational pull of volume occurs through its mass, as this gravity is a pulling together of volume as form through as vacuum of no form. Volume is pulled through mass, with mass acting as a vacuum or void. This causes a further acceleration of the volume further giving volume to further mass where gravity effectively cancels itself out perpetually resulting in a cycle.

Density as volume and mass is a localization of this cycle of volume and mass respectively observing volume and mass existing in proportion due to there ratios. An object of with a density relatively high in mass will have a greater grativational pull, while a density relatively higher in volume will have less of a gravitational pull but will be pulled towards an object, through gravity, that has a higher ratio of mass to volume.


Mass can be associated with 0d point space acting as a boundless field, where gravity is one of the foundational points (pardon the pun) for quantum entanglement. This gravity, through mass, observes itself as a inversive by nature where volume alternates between a state of unity and multiplicity that is foundational to its structure.

Matter is mass as formless void, volume as this formless void canceling itself out into directed movement through acceleration and density as the cycling of volume and mass maintaining both.

Matter is tri-fold in nature and reflects the basic 0d point, 1d line, and 2d Circle as the foundation for the defintion of God. Matter is an approximation of God, an image, that does not exist on its own terms but rather as an extension.

If A is defined through B(A,A) as C(A,A,A).

1. A is separated through B where A not just projects to a further defintion, but in this projection separates itself. One defintion leads to another with these definitions occurin g through a separation which is observed in accordance with time as a process of individuation (multiplication/division of definition).

2. A is directed towards B, but in doing so B is directed towards A. A is connected to B, through A, as C. C is the connection of A and B.

3. All defintion occurs through directed movement. Projecting away from an origin results in separation. Phenomenon projected towards eachother, through eachother, as eachother is connection.

Definition is existence through linear movement as directed movement with this directed movement being the foundational for all abstract and empirical phenomena (mind, emotion, material).

Mass is with out form. — eodnhoj7

There is nothing extant without form.