There might be a hair to split between what is conceived versus what is realized or actual. But, I would approach it as God must be slightly less than infinity and greater than everything else. — Cheshire

Might I approach it from a slightly physics direction. Assuming that maybe this “god” is the sum of all energy in the universe, god must be finite as the law of conservation of energy would dictate: cannot be created nor destroyed. Although finite in quantity, energy being the ability to do work one could say they must be infinite in quality - that is to say can transform from one form to the next. Cannot be destroyed cannot be created but ALWAYS changing

Might I approach it from a slightly physics direction. Assuming that maybe this “god” is the sum of all energy in the universe, god must be finite as the law of conservation of energy would dictate: cannot be created nor destroyed. Although finite in quantity, energy being the ability to do work one could say they must be infinite in quality - that is to say can transform from one form to the next. Cannot be destroyed cannot be created but ALWAYS changing — Benj96

Just passing by late at night, not following the convo lately. The theory of eternal inflation is a speculative physical theory that posits a a multiverse in which time is infinite in the forward direction and there are an actual infinity of universes. This is as I say speculative, and the author of the theory no longer believes in it, or no longer considers it a useful theory. Nevertheless, speculative cosmologists do consider infinite theories these days. They're probably bullpucky, but they are out there. So clearly physicists aren't troubled by conservation of energy when scribbling out these kinds of theories.

Tim, you can ask me anything, though I’m not sure you’re emotionally stable enough to receive the information in a constructive manner :razz:

Anyway back to the atheist peanut gallery lesson. I’ll still query 180 to see if he can answer the question about a premise/conclusion being sound, but am losing faith in him considering he once again, prematurely threw in the towel. Nonetheless, his analysis of the Ontological Argument is misguided for the following reasons:

Anyone who understands what is meant by the term ‘God’ or supreme being would see that such an entity must exist. The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived. Since anyone can conceive or comprehend, a priori, that particular definition standard, one can conceive of a God. Just as important, 180’s notion of soundness similarly fails on the epistemic grounds of philosophical idealism. Not only can God be conceived as a concept in one’s mind, but can also exist in one’s reality. Reality exists as obscure things-in-themselves.

Equally important are the questions and resulting facts about the world of mathematical truth’s (a priori)and logical necessity, or logically necessary truths like the Ontological Argument. In physical science, using a priori mathematical truths to discover a something in the world of objects (seen or unseen), those something’s are essentially brute fact, yet exist as true abstract structures in the mind. For instance, 2+2 =4 is a fact that exists. (At some point, reality can only be described mathematically-beyond the usual categories of protons, neutrons, and electrons.) The Ontological Argument works in the exact same way. 180 is once again wrong that ‘soundness’ has anything to do with the conclusion reached from a priori logic/analytical propositions (like the Ontological Argument ).

That also leads to other questions about Atheist's and their motivations and belief systems. Is it based on the Ontological Argument not being true, and if so, how so and by what method (a posteriori)? Is thier disbelief based on the logically impossible Omni-3? If so, how does that square with consciousness and reality?

If those are too difficult to answer, one is left with another brute fact (pardon the pun) that the Atheist's belief system seems extremely flawed. As an important ancillary note which perhaps Tim or 180 could find it easier to answer, why do Atheists like to troll religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz:

Tim, you can ask me anything, though I’m not sure you’re emotionally stable enough to receive the information in a constructive manner :razz:

Anyway back to the atheist peanut gallery lesson. I’ll still query 180 to see if he can answer the question about a premise/conclusion being sound, but am losing faith in him considering he once again, prematurely threw in the towel. Nonetheless, his analysis of the Ontological Argument is misguided for the following reasons: — 3017amen

This is why, all matter of the subject aside, you're a poisonous and toxic person. Indeed I can ask. But the history is that you never answer and refuse to answer - gratuitously calling my abilities into question while flattering yourself for what you have not done, even as you've said you would do it.

And the lie that your opponent in debate "threw in the towel." A lie of multiple folds, together again with your condescension. And not a particle or even scent of truth in it.

And as I have noted elsewhere, your kind of lying is toxic and destructive, described and laid out in a book*. You're pathetic. And I'm sure you take pride and reward yourself in a deluded way for your ability to annoy. It's called making a virtue of your vices, and itself ultimately destructive. And you would be worthy sympathy - except you have fallen through that net into the kind of evil described in the book.

You have apparently sacrificed yourself to your own sick private mythology and beliefs, and sacrificed your reason and perverted it to their maintenance and your own self-service. That leads you to lie and misrepresent even what you clearly do not understand, and your pathology won't allow you to learn.

Maybe a word that isn't often used in these forums applies, but seems altogether apt. You're nothing but a cheat and a cheater. And everything you say - or type - is suspect, for being essentially dishonest. For example, what you write above may seem to someone who does not know better to have some reason in it. But it is all ground covered before multiple times, and you simply ignore both that it has been covered before, and the substance of what was covered and how.

Nor does anyone troll the "religious" threads - another layered lie: for one, there are no religious threads. It's a philosophy of religion forum. As such open to question, the same questions you call trolling.

*People of the Lie, here:
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0684848597/ref=cm_cr_unknown?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1#reviews-filter-bar
A sign of such a person being packing many lies into small compass, so many it can be hard work to ferret the all out, but those that are left fester and infect.

And the lie that your opponent in debate "threw in the towel." A lie of multiple folds, together again with your condescension. And not a particle or even scent of truth in it. — tim wood

Nice try, but woefully incorrect, hence:

"2nd Request: Please provide a coherent logico-deductive premise. So far, your atheism is:

I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in "Whatever"

Let be established that 180 Proof has not proved The Logic of Atheism as being coherent.
TKO in Round one I'm afraid. (Or go back, read yours and my comments, get a drink and some coaching from your corner :razz: )

I'll continue the debate if you do your homework on logico-deductive reasoning 180! Again, your belief in "Whatever" is not coherent."


Put in another quarter Timmy and try again .
LOL

@3017amen
I think you do a pretty good job on this forum.

There are very few existentialist religious people who post their views.

In fact,I do enjoy the angry atheist types getting all riled up with your calmness humour and your interesting observations.

I don't agree with all your views,but I appreciate your calm.

Your two main protagonists are essentially philosophical meatheads with anger issues.

From the outside its obvious who is closer to the truth,and it ain't those two!

Let be established that 180 Proof has not proved The Logic of Atheism as being coherent. — 3017amen

Another glib lie - that wasn't the topic of the debate. You have turned it upside down with your lie to conceal the truth, which was that the topic was of your exact choosing, and that you ran away from it without engaging in it.

And @Protagoras, I would say grow up, except that I know that 3017's repetoire of deception is difficult for anyone to deal with who has not previously encountered it and had to survive. it.

God Bless you brother (if I'm allowed to say that).. . .You know, this kinda reminds me of a Keats quote:

Truth is beauty, beauty truth. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know. (That's from memory so I hope I got it right.) I appreciate your objective voice.

Anyway, well said. We all don't have to agree with one another either, no quarrel there. Actually here's another philosophical musing or concept. Sort of like the Taoist unity of opposites, I am more often than not inspired by protagonist behavior, if you know what I mean vern!

If nothing else, it's how NOT to be.

As far as Christian Existentialism, thanks it's kinda like politically, when I became a moderate independent. The sky opened up and revelation started. I felt liberated & free... . In a Greek moderation way, I realized that not only is it normal to draw from both sides (and other things in life designed to be hybrids and compromises/engineering, relationships, etc.), I have always realized that ultimately this is not my kingdom. And that speaks to the independent component. It's a win-win for me! And a peace of mind.

We need more moderate's in our political and religious institutions!!

@3017amen
Ah,that keats quote is one of my favourites!

I don't mind the god bless as its the intention that counts.

My views on god are unusual.
Materialism,however or philosophy without spirituality is a dud!

And yes definately more moderates needed in religion and elsewhere. But politics and institutions I have no faith in!

To me religion/spirituality/philosophy is personal/existential.
As you say,all else is vanity and fumbling!

@tim wood
I have watched the interactions closely,I trust my own judgement.
You are over emotional,as is 180.

Reread your post to 3017 about people of the lie and such like. That is some serious overemotional venting brother!

If you like rationality then what's with the vitriol and nonsense?

Thanks Pro! Indeed to all. You know, BTW, I throw them bones and olive branches on occasion just to help but they still don't get it. For instance, if you read what I said I suggested a posteriori kinds of knowledge (WJ religious experiences).

Oh well, like the late great George Harrison said: a lot of things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot. (I think I got that one right too, not sure though.) In any case, besides, over 75% of philosophical domains posit God, for some reason go figure!!
:razz:

Read a little - or a lot - more, then. I was/am not "venting." If you think I am mistaken, take up the evidence. Or to keep it simple, what exactly do you make of 3017's claims about the recent debate he was in?

Weasels are hard to spot, once spotted they're hard to grasp, once grasped, hard to hold onto. And that because they've a lifetime of honing their weasel skills as survival skills. But two points: weasels do damage, and once you've learned to spot them most of their lies become obvious. And this simply education in pathology.

@3017amen
I think both guys are searching for truth and you show your the bigger man by giving them olive branches.

One is not a philosopher or psychologist If one doesn't engage in a genuine existential critique of religion. Angry rants don't count!

And if you search for truth you will find divinity. Even if you find the divine is the human soul.

@tim wood
I have read posts on this forum for years before I joined,so I've read plenty of all three on this thread.

The recent debate was disappointing overall,but I blame

180 as he refused to engage because he knew he wasn't going to win. He's just too emotional and narrow minded.

If you two actually discussed properly with 3017 it would be good. I was looking forward to the debate.

Prove me wrong by debating with civility and style.

One is not a philosopher or psychologist If one doesn't engage in a genuine existential critique of religion. Angry rants don't count!

And if you search for truth you will find divinity. Even if you find the divine is the human soul. — Protagoras

I love that last quote. Thank you for that inspirational message! Happy 4th!

180 as he refused to engage because he knew he wasn't going to win. He's just too emotional and narrow minded. — Protagoras

What? What planet are you on? This is crazy-making. And the debate is there for all to read.

I know, I was extremely disappointed too. I had all sorts of arguments lined up, as I hinted at in my opening statement.... .

@3017amen
If I read you correctly are you saying standard logic cannot prove things like conciousness and time which are obviously real,therefore the concept of God is like the reality of time and conciousness,and doesn't follow standard logic?

@tim wood
Well,it's obvious to me. Difference is I keep level headed about you disagreeing with me. And I don't demonise people just for a disagreement.

I asked you a question above:

Or to keep it simple, what exactly do you make of 3017's claims about the recent debate he was in? — tim wood

If I understand your reply, your understanding is at complete odds with the facts. The debate moderator himself was obliged to step in and correct - as a simple matter of fact - some of 3017's lies.

I read you correctly are you saying standard logic cannot prove things like conciousness and time which are obviously real,therefore the concept of God is like the reality of time and conciousness,and doesn't follow standard logic? — Protagoras

Well, generally speaking, that is one so-called tenet of my philosophy or truth as the case may be. More specifically, that overall argument refers to the nature of reality and/or existence, and how a priori logic cannot capture the 'truth' of those same realities. For example, mathematics (a priori mathematical truth's) themselves have limitations (Gödel/Heisenberg/Turing, Kant, self-referential propositions/paradox-liars paradox, etc. etc.) even when used by physicists... .

To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)

@tim wood
And? Is a moderator the standard for truth? I know what I see.
Lies! Just listen to your rhethoric!

@3017amen
Yes,that is what I saw in your opening debate post and its a pretty solid case,as standard logic breaks down at the practical ultimate level.

Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths?

The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived — 3017amen

Thank you for including me in the discussion. I was going through your post when I read the above line.

I tried to mathematize Anselm's exact words, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." My initial thoughts as outlined in this thread was that

1. The word "greater" as it appears in Anselms's ontological argument is essentially quantitative, it even has a mathematical symbol, ">", for it.

2. God as "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is, to my reckoning, infinity.

3. So, if God exists, an actual infinity should exist but, I argued, since no actual infinities exist, God too can't exist!

As I mentioned in one of my other posts, Anselm's argument is predicated on the existence of actual infinities and utlimately boils down to that precise mathematical issue.

I've now, luckily or not, changed my mind i.e. I find my refutation of the ontological argument to be flawed and therefore concede that Anselm's argument remains whole and unsullied.

Why?

:point: The Symmetry Argument/Method.

The Symmetry Argument/Method basically states that given the obvious truth of dualistic relationships (hot-cold, up-down, big-small, you get the idea) and how such a paradigm has been adopted and empirically verfied (e.g. electron-positron), it's safe, even necessary, to conclude that reality has dualistic symmetry (thing-antithing). Thus, if I know a certain thing exists, it's opposite, the antithing should also exist.

Ergo, I went on, since I TheMadFool am powerless, ignorant, and bad, The Symmetry Argument/Method implies that God (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good) has to exist.

Back to the main page now. Actual infinities have to exist because actual finites do exist e.g. the numbers 2 and 4. This because of The Symmetry Argument/Method - the finite and infinity constitute a dualistic symmetrical pair.

Actual infinities exist. You might find it interesting to know that the mathematician Georg Cantor of set theory & infinity fame claimed God = Infinity. This seems to fit like a glove with Anselm's "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Ergo, since actual infinities exist, God is infinity, God exists!

And? Is a moderator the standard for truth? — Protagoras

The moderator said he closed the debate after non-response within agreed limits from 3017

Debate Discussion: The Logic of Atheism
The debate is over and the only ongoing discussion appears to be with a now banned member, so I am closing this thread.
12 days ago
Debate: The Logic of Atheism
Closed due to inactivity.
12 days ago

But 3017 says his opponent threw in the towel. You can see at the debate itself that is not true. And so forth.

So the question arises, what is your standard of truth?

The moderator said he closed the debate after non-response within agreed limits from 3017 — tim wood

Stop right there. It was agreed we would have an unlimited amount of time for responses. It doesn't matter now but I cannot let that pass without correction. If you want quotes I'll provide them. And it was two days without a response which was the weekend. Get it straight dude.

Anyway go back to your angry tirades :razz:

Stop right there. It was agreed we would have an unlimited amount of time for responses. It doesn't matter now but I cannot let that pass without correction. If you want quotes I'll provide them. — 3017amen

Provide them. On the face of it "unlimited time" makes no sense.

180 and I agreed to the following:

Title: Atheism is not Logical


1. No word limits per post.

2. No links to previous posts on TPF.

Take as much time as needed between posts.

I will start the debate with an opening argument(s).

Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths? — Protagoras

I would love to clarify, why don't you start a new thread?

@tim wood
I am my standard of truth and all who make sense.
You do not make sense on this issue.

Seems to me you have a habit of demanding proof after proof for non sequitur reasons. And yet,said proofs don't mean much to you.
What is your standard of truth tim? A moderator?!

I followed the debate myself,I don't need your interpretations tempered with emotionality.
You should calm down and stop being so trigger partisan.