Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Anselm who posited the Omni-stuff, as well as the ontological argument. In any case, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm selective on what works and what doesn't work. Just read my profile LOL.

, 1-3 just repeats your belief, 4-5 adds more of your belief outside the opening post, and all ignores the interlocutors unabated as if non-existent (including shifting the burden of proof, arguing from ignorance, gap-filling, special pleading).

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

(yep, including shifting the burden of proof again)

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

With nothing more to say (and keeping fallacies alive and well), you've abandoned philosophy for one.

:up:

Please state your counter arguments if you have any. — Devans99

I've literally just said. There's nothing to counter. All you've done is tell us that something seems some way to you. It doesn't seem that way to me. What's to counter?

Okay, let's philosophize. Let's begin with some existential/metaphysical questions:

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence?

Mr. jorndoe, what is conscious existence? I'm a Christian Existentialist, if you haven't figured it out LOL.

And you are a what?

...any answers to that 180? Perhaps 260 proof would help...:grin:

Have you ever heard the term 'dipolar' God? Theoretical physicist Davies argues that in his book the Mind of God. It combines logical necessity with contingency. An unchanging timeless being (required for the notion of what caused the Big Bang/what was God doing prior to it) combined with openness and freedom of say, QM or quantum physics (double slit experiment, etc.). — 3017amen

We certainly need something like that. Timelessness it seems must have something of a non-sequential nature about it.

The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. I prefer to think as matter as a spread out wave of energy that collapses to a very small wave when we measure it. Something being in two places at the same time - no way is that possible is my gut reaction.

One problem is timelessness could be absolutely anything. All we can say it is not spacetime. Not much to go on :(

Gee, well, something exists!! LOL — 3017amen

We can see Nature and that it Rules. It sent a plague of locusts in Africa that blotted out the sun, 100 degrees F in Siberia, a killer virus, and even Trump…

If you want an Invisible Person to rule, He needs to conform to exactly what Nature does, which doesn't really add anything to Nature's natural goings on.

The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. — Devans99

It should. And that's because consciousness and subconsciousness working together violates LEM.

It's called a dipolar God :grin:

The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. I prefer to think as matter as a spread out wave of energy that collapses to a very small wave when we measure it. Something being in two places at the same time - no way is that possible is my gut reaction. — Devans99

Yet, the timeless needs be everything, which thus has to be all-at-once and ever, such as in a superposition.

It doesn't seem that way to me. What's to counter? — Isaac

Well the idea is you explain why it doesn't seem that way to you... and we sort of debate it - rhetoric - as the ancient greek philosophers called it - this is the purpose of The Philosophy Forum.

dipolar God — 3017amen

Good and Evil sprang from Wrong and Right,
When from naught twin Genii split day and night.
Oh, fear not that black’s might can vanquish white;
Darkest night can’t e’en quench the smallest light!

Except that they were really the same Guy.

Not really, there is a lot of data available for quantum weirdness.... — A Seagull
Not sure I'm following you there. — 3017amen

My point is simply that there is a lot of data for what occurs within our universe but none for what may lie outside of it, And when one is referring to the origin of the universe one is presumably referring to things outside our universe (unless one claims that our universe is self created), for which there is no data.

Yes, please provide a ToE or otherwise your theory of causation!! — 3017amen

Either in favour of the very prejudice I was describing -- granting authority to those who claim to have answers instead of those who genuinely seek them -- or else you make very funny joke.

We can see Nature and that it Rules. It sent a plague of locusts in Africa that blotted out the sun, 100 degrees F in Siberia, a killer virus, and even Trump…

If you want an Invisible Person to rule, He needs to conform to exactly what Nature does, which doesn't really add anything to Nature's natural goings on — PoeticUniverse

Hello Poetic! My opinion is that the universe is not perfect, but optimal given the constraints that the (probable) creator of the universe was working under.

As life, society and technology evolves, our environment tends towards optimal.

The creator of the universe (I'm almost certain there is one) was benevolent - he foresaw that we would reach an optimal state of existence - so he went ahead and created the universe. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances.

Yet, the timeless needs be everything, which thus has to be all-at-once and ever, such as in a superposition — PoeticUniverse

I'm not sure about superposition - how can something be more than one position at the same time? I think matter could be purely a wave - spread out at times so it seems its in multiple positions - collapsed to a small wave when we measure it.

Timelessness is a mighty puzzle - it maybe unsolvable. If it exists, all we know is it not spacetime - not much to go on.

Those who show favor might not become dear
Do not fear the unknown, for it just might be clear
With a nod and a blink, there is never time
Conscious or subconscious, what an eye

You have to put yourself in the mind of Thomas - this was before the discovery of biological evolution and they still thought the earth was the centre of the universe. I think he made very reasonable conclusions with the amount of evidence he was working with. — Devans99

Aquinas made good ARGUMENTS. His conclusions sucked.

Essentially he was saying that things happened because of "God"...rather than "We do not know why it happened."

Mistake made by many.

On the question of whether at least one god exists or not:

You can easily use logic to conclude "I do not know."

It is impossible to use logic to conclude "There are no gods" "There is a god" "It is more likely that there is at least one god" or "It is more likely that there are no gods."

180 Proof
1.3k
Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."

If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown."
— Frank Apisa
:up:

I do not think anyone here begrudges you [Devans99] any belief you happen to believe in, but you have been offering them as substantive for really a long time across many threads in what amounts to a long-term one-note samba of nonsense.
— tim wood
:100:

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'.
— Devans99
Either you don't know that you don't know (Dunning-Kruger effect) or you know you don't know and lack the integrity, or honesty, to admit it; so which is it, Devans?

And your counter argument?
— Devans99
You've not made a sound, or evidentiary, argument for the 'existence of g/G' yet (as tim wood, Banno, I et al have established), which brings Hitchens' Razor comes to mind:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
— duly Hitchslaps Devon99 — 180 Proof

We are in a lot more agreement on this, 180, than I thought we'd be able to get.

Thanks.

Stick to the topic at hand, . (Are you going to just keep ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent?)
By the way, nothing here is about whatever you or I believe or not. (Unless things go full-metal psych'ceramics I guess.)

On this question...NOTHING WRONG WITH "BELIEFS" AT ALL.

On this question, "beliefs" are essentially guesses about what IS.

Some guess there is a GOD.

Some guess there are GODS.

Some guess there are no gods.

Whatever.

Some guess there is a GOD.

Some guess there are GODS.

Some guess there are no gods. — Frank Apisa

Can you assign your estimated probabilities to each option?

Okay sure, let's stay on topic. Was conscious existence caused from chaos?

Not sure what to say - causality is about as good an axiom as it comes - but there is no way we can be 100% sure that it holds universally - so I have to hedge my bets - all I can say is there is almost certainly a timeless first cause. — Devans99

Firstly, the contents of argument tells me it's deductive - first cause arguments usually are - but then your conclusion has an obvious inductive character given away by the phrase "almost certainly". :chin:

presumably referring to things outside our universe (unless one claims that our universe is self created), for which there is no data. — A Seagull

Do you have knowledge of what exists outside the universe?

Firstly, the contents of argument tells me it's deductive - first cause arguments usually are - but then your conclusion has an obvious inductive character given away by the phrase "almost certainly" — TheMadFool

The OP reaches a deductive conclusion, but that conclusion is based on the assumption that causality is universal within space time. The assumption of causality seems to be in line with everything we know (at macro level definitely, at micro level too arguably). It is an empirically supported assumption. It is a logically justifiable assumption. But it is still an assumption so we cannot claim certainty - hence I opted for the words 'almost certainly'.

Was conscious existence caused from chaos? — 3017amen

Still ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent.
And how the heck would I know?
But we do know some things, and "atemporal mind" ain't it (by all available evidence it's incoherent nonsense).
Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments?

But we do know some things, and "atemporal mind" ain't it (by all available evidence it's incoherent nonsense). — jorndoe

We only know one state of existence - spacetime. You are ruling out all the other possible states of existence - things not involving space or time even maybe - on what evidence?

Timelessness — Devans99

The closest in the literature seems to be abstract objects.
Labeling those "deities" or "God" would be a radical departure from religions though.

We only know [...] You are ruling out [...] — Devans99

No, you're ruling in by way of appeal to ignorance, for one.

Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments? — jorndoe

I thought I did, but for some reason you failed to pass muster in answering my concerns. But yes, God does exist, if that's what you are asking me.

The closest in the literature seems to be abstract objects.
Labeling those "deities" or "God" would be a radical departure from religions though. — jorndoe

If you have read the thread, you would see that logic has taken us to the conclusion that something permanent, external to time, somehow caused time. That implies that change without time - within the state of timelessness that 'pre-existed' (or maybe enclosed) our universe - must be possible. I admit I am stumped on exactly how.

The timeless thing, the first cause, must be able to effect change within spacetime - start the Big Bang or whatever - the universe requires a concrete start, or it is nothing.

So the timeless thing must be self-driven in some manner, IE intelligent.