And the universe continues to function as it does.

That it most certainly does.

I did prove God. Imperatives of reason exist. Only a mind can issue an imperative. Therefore the imperatives of reason are the imperatives of an existent mind. And that mind will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent for the reasons I gave. That's a proof.

Let's go back a bit...

There are imperatives of reason. A demonstration is itself an appeal to one. For instance, it is an imperative of reason that arguments of this form

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q

entail their conclusions. And moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason. And imperatives of prudence are imperatives of Reason. So, logic, prudence and morality are all made of imperatives of Reason. They cannot reasonably be doubted (their content, yes, but not their existence). So, this premise cannot reasonably be doubted:

So, lets say I just simply follow your line of thinking above, then, it looks like I'm doubting the content of the imperative of reason you have posited. Not its existence. For, in my previous reply, using the same formula, I've posited its exact opposite.

Therefore, neither of these examples of an imperative of reason, can conclusively prove the existence of a God. What follows in your further examples of the imperatives coming from an existent mind and that mind being omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and therefore are from God, only follow if you accept that the content of your formula cannot be reasonably doubted. However, you can, using the same formula, reasonably argue for the exact opposite, and come to the conclusion that no God exists.

:chin:

Imperatives of reason exist. — Bartricks

They are grammatical, emergent from discursive reason, and "exist" only insofar as language exists. "Imperatives" are not the function or property of a private "mind". All you've "proved" is that language exists. :roll: :sweat:

I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. — Twilight of the Idols

this has an interesting resonance with a thought I recently had that “the only thing omniscience could not know is ignorance”. It cannot be omniscient then. It couldn’t conceive of the state of ignorance.

The hard or brutal facts of our existence demand an effort from us to continue living. I think a balance between the brutal act of living and a spiritual or transcendent source of connection (finite/infinite) to potentially be a more realistic solution (if the problem we're addressing is spiritual despair). — CountVictorClimacusIII

I can't speak for you, but I am one of the most fortunate people in the history of the world. That hits me every day, with most things I do. If I can't be satisfied with that, who can be satisfied with anything. So - I don't see the act of living as brutal and I don't see the source of connection as transcendent. God, Buddha, the Tao, and all those guys are always right here. I can see them in my peripheral vision.

Surrendering to a spiritual path is an attractive thought, I just see it as difficult to properly apply in practice. — CountVictorClimacusIII

We can leave it at that.

Or, just as well, some(one) to blame, a Feuerbachian scapegoat ... — 180 Proof

Otherwise, our in-gratitude signifies taking 'the living – boredom and spite, joys and sorrows, loves and strangers – and the dying' for granted (i.e. neglecting, or denying, that we are called-into-question by these (our) givens). — 180 Proof

I have wondered whether how we take this is a matter of temperament, something we're born with, rather than anything learned.

So you are denying the validity of my argument?

You simply assumed God did not exist after I just provided you with a proof that he did. You didn't challenge a premise in my argument, you just pointed out that by changing the premises one changes the conclusion. That's neither here nor there. The issue is whether the premises are true. And in my argument's case I cannot see any grounds for doubting a single one of them. Again, do you deny there are imperatives of Reason? Do you deny that minds and minds alone can issue imperatives? Do you deny that a mind whose imperatives constitute imperatives of Reason - so, the mind of Reason - would be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent? You have said nothing to challenge those claims.

So you must be challenging the validity of the argument. And your grounds for doing so are what? No more, it would seem, than the brute possibility that despite appearing valid it may not be. Well, about what proof of anything could you not do that? That's just an arbitrary radical scepticism that you will adopt whenever an argument leads to a disliked conclusion. It's just to say 'but how can we know anything?' Not systematically, but just when it suits. It's once more the self indulgent 'if I don't like it, it ain't true' attitude rearing its head.

You asked for a demonstration and I provided one. If you were sceptical about the power of all demonstrations to show us anything you should have said before asking me to provide one so that I could know that doing so would be pointless.

You have provided nothing of the sort. As 180 proof has further demonstrated, all you have done is shown your ability to use discursive reason and language to create an argument based on a premise (your point number 1 and 2) that cannot be proven unless you accept 1. and thereby 2. as true. Changing the content changes the conclusion, yes. This demonstrates that I can use the same discursive reason to flip your argument on it's head and "prove" the opposite, thereby not actually proving anything. Ultimately, the brute possibility that it may not be valid, is still a possibility. A possibility that you have not sufficiently disputed in any convincing way.

Also your comment of "how can we know anything" is misguided. Obviously, context is important.

The conclusion here is that both examples are ultimately meaningless and do not qualify as any truth or any proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a God existing or not existing. Just as your prison theory is an interesting idea, an idea is all it is.

I've also not once said that I did not like your conclusions. You assuming my position and inferring as such is ignorant, and makes me wonder what you're projecting. Your entire idea is very interesting, and I've enjoyed exploring it with you. But that's all it is. As for self-indulgence, I see no difference on your part.

"God, Buddha, the Tao, and all those guys are always right here. I can see them in my peripheral vision."

A beautiful thought.

I think you do not know what a 'demonstration' is, or what arguments do. They extract the implications of their premises. So pointing out that if you change the premises you get a different conclusion is just silly. Yes. The point is to feed in true premises - then you find out what they imply. That's how reasoning works. That's why we don't just bump around the world relying on instinct.

Like I say, before asking me to provide a demonstration you should have had the decency to tell me that you don't know what one of those is and that as far as you are concerned we can a just believe what we want and there's no way of knowing what this life is about.

Incidentally, anyone who thinks 180proof has made a valuable contribution is, well, beyond hope. Anyway, many lifetimes here await you, methinks.

Well. Agree to disagree then. Which is ok. Thanks for the chat.

No, I don't agree to disagree at all. I mean what, exactly, do you disagree with? Do you think my demonstration was not valid? Or do you think it had a false premise? What are you trying to get to me to agree to disagree about?

I think he just means he doesn’t want to talk to you anymore because you’re an obnoxious douchebag. I could be wrong but it follows from how much of an obnoxious douchebag you are. :roll:

Er no, that doesn't follow. And what do you think calling someone an obnoxious douchebag makes you, DumboJones? Focus on the argument, not the arguer. And note that calling someone something does not militate against you being that thing.

I liken our death to what you are suggesting god may have done. When we die, it's like a big bang, where all our molecules and finer particles are blown apart into a kajillion (scientific term of art) directions becoming a more integrated part of All (maggots, ravens, coyotes, microbes, etc., then carried off to parts unknown and shit back on the prairie to make the grass grow, get eaten, shit again, and etc. Maybe even spun off into the universe after a glancing blow from and inter-stellar or inter-galactic rocky visitor. It's like the river: Sit and watch it go by and wonder if the same water molecule ever goes by twice, and if so, in how long? Wave-ocean, us-earth, everything- All.

Likewise with the soul. We always have been a part of All but we were a synthesized or coagulated part of it. At death, we "reintegrate" more fully. And, once that state is achieved (possibly after a short transition process) who the hell needs to be "self-aware" on the one hand, or a "special" part of All on the other? At that point, you are All. It is only us that perceived a separateness, so we are just coming home when we die. Anyone who's ever been beside themselves with joy will understand the phrase "beside myself"; You don't exist except as part of something greater than you. This idea that you, or we, are somehow "special" is only true when placed in the context of everything being special; one thing no more than the other.

We were only parsed out as "coagulated"/ "separate"/"synthesized" part in the first place so All could perceive that part of itself. We are those pieces All blew into. There is an infinite number of you out there, the same, and some varied by a molecule or atom here or there. And that goes for everything else, too. And for nothing. After all, it is All. It is both sentient and not, at the same time and place.

I think he just means he doesn’t want to talk to you anymore because you’re an obnoxious douchebag. I could be wrong but it follows from how much of an obnoxious douchebag you are. — DingoJones

It's totally improper for me not to castigate you for your egregious abuse. Also, I hate emojis. But still:

:up: :up: :up:

Eurgh, the usual suspects: Terribly-Condescending Clark joins the 'arguer, not the argument' party. Focus. On. The. Argument.

It’s my own fault for reading his painful exchanges. A momentary lapse I feel better now.

It is painful to look directly at the sun, Dunbojones. Turn back to the cave wall and watch the shadow puppets. Oo, what's the Dawkins puppet going to do next? He's going to read an SEP page while having his hand held by his big friend Dennett.

the omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang to become the Universe. — CountVictorClimacusIII

An Absolute, such as 'God' cannot go away or have a beginning, or it wouldn't be Fundamental and 'First'.

Further, a Mind couldn't have been fundamental, for it would have parts necessarily more fundamental.

That's not true. God is by definition a mind, for God is just shorthand for 'an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind'.

Minds do not have parts. That's why you can't have half of one.

God could destroy himself if he wished. To think he couldn't is to think him constrained. Yet by definition he's omnipotent and so unconstrained.

What's confused about Douglas Adams's proposal is the idea that God might be lacking in some knowledge such that he would need to do X to acquire it. This is doubly confused for a) God knows everything and b) God doesn't 'need' to do anything to acquire anything, for he's omnipotent.

Eurgh, the usual suspects: Terribly-Condescending Clark joins the 'arguer, not the argument' party. Focus. On. The. Argument. — Bartricks

You're right, I shouldn't have jumped in.

An Absolute, such as 'God' cannot go away or have a beginning, or it wouldn't be Fundamental and 'First'.

Further, a Mind couldn't have been fundamental, for it would have parts necessarily more fundamental. — PoeticUniverse

God is whatever God is. I don't think It is constrained by human interpretations of what it can or should be, can or should do.

God is by definition ... — Bartricks

:roll: Vacuous semantics (glossolalia). "Goober is by definition" does not entail Goober is in fact.

Yes, and if you had read what I said carefully and had sufficient powers of understanding, you'd realize that I did not say "God exists by definition", I said "God is by definition an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind".

Here's a slightly adjusted version of this thread:

OP: Douglas Adams wrote a short story about how a bachelor knowingly uses his wives to find out if he has a wife. Perhaps that's what we all are: wives of a bachelor who is knowingly using his wives to try and find out if he has a wife. It's an interesting idea, no?

Me: That makes no sense; indeed it is doubly confused. FIrst, a bachelor doesn't have a wife by definition. And second, if he's knowingly using his wives to try and find out if he has a wife, then he already knows that he does. So it's just silly.

70IQ: Semanticals! Linguistimisation! The fallacy of semantical linguistimisation. You can't define a bachelor into existence. I'm laughing so hard I am crying and defecating and urinating.

Me: I didn't say that you can define a bachelor into existence. I have argued that you cannot: that whether a bachelor exists is not something we can draw a conclusion about by mere examination of the concept alone. I simply pointed out that a bachelor is by definition wifeless. And thus to propose that there might be a bachelor who is knowingly consulting his wives to find out if he has a wife, is a thoroughly confused proposal that reflects conceptual incompetence on the part of its originator and, indeed, anyone impressed by the idea.

Yes, and if you had read what I said carefully and had sufficient powers of understanding, you'd realize that I did not say "God exists by definition", I said "God is by definition an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind". — Bartricks

Oh, pardon me, from the context of both this thread discussion and your particular post, I had no indication that you assume you are talking about a merely fictional mind ("God") defined with fictional predicates. Well then, my mistake – carry on confabulating, Barftrix, instead of philosophizing. :ok:

So, you think if one says "bachelors are by definition unmarried men" one is asserting bachelors to be fictional? Okay, good point 70IQ.

:rofl: Another non sequitur pulled out of your butt. (Ooo look, Barftrix's, got a new tag on his slope. :up: )

I have no idea what 'a new tag on his slope' means. I am wearing a new watch while skiing?