Proving God in 20 statements

[Minimalist]

Insulting the Staff over points of forum rules. I can see this ending well.

Quick!




Gather rocks!

[Losty]

Being Devoured by Cthulhu
A poem by Crookshank




AAAAAAAAAAARG!!!! Oh no.. OOOOH no..nooo...
Get off me.. Nooooo!!!! Help...HELP
My foot.. my foot.. AAAAAARGH.,. .YOU ****.. YOU ****
YOU'RE EATING MY **** FOOT.. NO NO NO

How I ended up this way be a story I don't have time to tell
Since I am currently being devoured mercilessly by the deep one
I have been chosen as his meal.. I am of course honoured but...

AAAAAAAAARGH!!! SOMEBODY SAVE ME
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.. OH JESUS CHRIST
MY WHOLE LEG IS GONE.. i CAN HEAR HIM CRUNCHING ON MY TIBEA
FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY.. AAAARGH AAAARGH...

AAAARGH MY OTHER LEG.. NO NO NO.. (HORRIFIC SCREAMING)
No.. no.. I'm legless.. he's eaten both my legs..
Oh that crunching sound.. I can see my foot sticking out of his mouth
And here comes his mouth again filled with my blood
Who would have thought I had so much ?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.. half of my torso is gone
I can't see.. everything is going black
All I can hear is the crunching and munching and slobbering
Of this huge beast.. my life is draining from me
As my blood reddens the sea....

With the next bite my left arm and part of my upper torso are eaten
I no longer have the energy to scream
I am now unable to feel .....

http://allpoetry.com/poem/9442561-Being-...Crookshank

[Mystic]

The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.

Honestly it's a matter of perspective. I personally find the first argument doesn't prove "God", but it does prove a Creator or a god. Just not the Capital g, God.

I say this because for example, there is good arguments that time is finite.

For example, 

If every point of time began, then no point of time didn't begin, hence all points of time began. If all points of time began, the whole of time began. If whole of time began, it needs a cause. 

Now either the universe existed in a timeless state and moved into a time one by a cause it's own nature, or it was caused. I don't think a timeless universe can cause a change into a time one because that would require being in time. That is why it makes sense to be a timeless Creator created the universe in which time did not and still doesn't apply to it.  It doesn't make sense to me for this to be material agency. That is to say just as I cannot imagine a penny creating time, the same is of any material existence.

Of course that thing that created time sees real time, but that is different then it being changed.

This doesn't prove "God" but seems to point to a timeless creator. 

Now I can argue these properties and why I think a timeless willing creator is a better explanation or the only possible explanation. The cosmological argument however is useful in that in points to the nature of a first uncaused caused (which has to be argued later if it can be the universe or must be something else).

[smfortune]

The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.

Honestly it's a matter of perspective. I personally find the first argument doesn't prove "God", but it does prove a Creator or a god. Just not the Capital g, God.

I say this because for example, there is good arguments that time is finite.

For example, 

If every point of time began, then no point of time didn't begin, hence all points of time began. If all points of time began, the whole of time began. If whole of time began, it needs a cause. 

Now either the universe existed in a timeless state and moved into a time one by a cause it's own nature, or it was caused. I don't think a timeless universe can cause a change into a time one because that would require being in time. That is why it makes sense to be a timeless Creator created the universe in which time did not and still doesn't apply to it.  It doesn't make sense to me for this to be material agency. That is to say just as I cannot imagine a penny creating time, the same is of any material existence.

Of course that thing that created time sees real time, but that is different then it being changed.

This doesn't prove "God" but seems to point to a timeless creator. 

Now I can argue these properties and why I think a timeless willing creator is a better explanation or the only possible explanation. The cosmological argument however is useful in that in points to the nature of a first uncaused caused (which has to be argued later if it can be the universe or must be something else).

You are not far from the truth.

[Mudhammam]

Being Devoured by Cthulhu
A poem by Crookshank




AAAAAAAAAAARG!!!!  Oh no.. OOOOH no..nooo...
Get off me.. Nooooo!!!! Help...HELP
My foot.. my foot.. AAAAAARGH.,. .YOU ****.. YOU ****
YOU'RE EATING MY **** FOOT.. NO NO NO

How I ended up this way be a story I don't have time to tell
Since I am currently being devoured mercilessly by the deep one
I have been chosen as his meal.. I am of course honoured but...

AAAAAAAAARGH!!! SOMEBODY SAVE ME
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.. OH JESUS CHRIST
MY WHOLE LEG IS GONE.. i CAN HEAR HIM CRUNCHING ON MY TIBEA
FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY.. AAAARGH AAAARGH...

AAAARGH MY OTHER LEG.. NO NO NO.. (HORRIFIC SCREAMING)
No.. no.. I'm legless.. he's eaten both my legs..
Oh that crunching sound.. I can see my foot sticking out of his mouth
And here comes his mouth again filled with my blood
Who would have thought I had so much ?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.. half of my torso is gone
I can't see.. everything is going black
All I can hear is the crunching and munching and slobbering
Of this huge beast.. my life is draining from me
As my blood reddens the sea....

With the next bite my left arm and part of my upper torso are eaten
I no longer have the energy to scream
I am now unable to feel .....

http://allpoetry.com/poem/9442561-Being-...Crookshank

A poem? Really? That's funny because you posted this 13 minutes ago and 7 minutes ago I wrote this:

I used to go to sleep with my mother's voice in my ears.
I used to go to sleep imagining myself embracing an unknown face.
Now I go to sleep with a face like my mother's.
Now I go to sleep.

It's not much, not even good, but it is ironic how sometimes Fate beckons the intersection of two paths....

[smfortune]

Look dude...you can put new shoes on an old whore, but she's still gonna walk with a limp.


The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.

The problem with the first cause argument is that it can be thought of as circular in that it begs the question of an external cause. My argument does not do that. Only a causation is needed. Internal or external. This was explicitly stated in Note (ii) of the proof. However, the proof itself isn't a first cause (cosmological) argument. If anything it is more aligned with ontological arguments. But even then, it skips over the criticism of an appeal to infinity as an abstract concept since infinity is itself necessarily proved within the proof itself. In other words, infinity CANNOT be abstract because it necessarily exist for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. This also was explicitly stated in the Notes to the proof; Note (vi). So, yes, I have materially improved on both the cosmological and ontological arguments.

[Mystic]

Look dude...you can put new shoes on an old whore, but she's still gonna walk with a limp.


The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.

The problem with the first cause argument is that it can be thought of as circular in that it begs the question of an external cause. My argument does not do that. Only a causation is needed. Internal or external. This was explicitly stated in Note (ii) of the proof. However, the proof itself isn't a first cause (cosmological) argument. If anything it is more aligned with ontological arguments. But even then, it skips over the criticism of an appeal to infinity as an abstract concept since infinity is itself necessarily proved within the proof itself. In other words, infinity CANNOT be abstract because it necessarily exist for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. This also was explicitly stated in the Notes to the proof; Note (vi). So, yes, I have materially improved on both the cosmological and ontological arguments.

Ok I'm going to re-read your proof. This might be interesting. I don't quite understand, I also went TM:DR root even though I took model logic in university, it still hurts my head.

[smfortune]

The problem with the first cause argument is that it can be thought of as circular in that it begs the question of an external cause. My argument does not do that. Only a causation is needed. Internal or external. This was explicitly stated in Note (ii) of the proof. However, the proof itself isn't a first cause (cosmological) argument. If anything it is more aligned with ontological arguments. But even then, it skips over the criticism of an appeal to infinity as an abstract concept since infinity is itself necessarily proved within the proof itself. In other words, infinity CANNOT be abstract because it necessarily exist for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. This also was explicitly stated in the Notes to the proof; Note (vi). So, yes, I have materially improved on both the cosmological and ontological arguments.

Ok I'm going to re-read your proof. This might be interesting. I don't quite understand, I also went TMR root even though I took model logic in university, it still hurts my head.

Happy reading. Thanks dude.

[Mystic]

smfortune, you know how every model logic phrase can be reworded in language (they teach you to do this)? I haven't done this for years and will have be retaking the courses that taught this stuff.

Can you do us a favor and translate all the steps in plain English?

[robvalue]

Nestor: I'm not really sure what you're asking me. I agree there are axiomatic assumptions that cannot be tested. Hopefully, everyone agrees on these when the debate begins, and they should be as few as possible.

If one party wants to put their conclusion in as a premise, then all they can do is make a case as to why this assumption is reasonable and necessary.

All I'm saying is you have to insert reality at some point when trying to learn about reality, whenever possible. We use abstract frameworks to model it, and we need to make sure our models are accurate. Otherwise you get the kind of wibbling we see on the forum constantly, which have no bearing on reality at all. (Or if they do, this cannot be demonstrated to even vaguely be the case.) Jumping back into solipsism (I'm not sure if this is what you refer to) is another tedious apologetic trick. Either we make the base assumptions together with the theist and then leave them be, or we might as well not even start.