The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[Bucky Ball]

"Non-existence" is a category. It exists in your mind.
Existence is nothing other than a descriptive category.

correct.

There are "things".

Agreed.

We *describe* them as having *existence*. They don't actually *have* (any additional) "thing" (called existence).

Also agreed. I would even say that the statement: “X exists” is a tautology if X does, in fact, exist. I don’t think Bel disagrees with any of this, but I’ll let him answer for himself from this point forward.

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

[comet]

This is the thing. Much value to philosophy, as it given us much in discipline of thought, yet it has been whored, DAP'd, gangbanged beyond all recognition.

I usually ask a philosopher "does that come with fries?".

I usually ask if we can put the claims side by side to see how things flush out. Who's claim seems to be more valid.

---

correct.


Agreed.


Also agreed. I would even say that the statement: “X exists” is a tautology if X does, in fact, exist. I don’t think Bel disagrees with any of this, but I’ll let him answer for himself from this point forward.

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

exactly why I say theist have some properties about their god that do line up with observations and some properties that do not.

[Abaddon_ire]

That does not mean the bronze caused the statue, it means there had to actually BE bronze for any agent to make a bronze statue.

In the vocabulary used to translate Aristotle, "there actually had to be X for Y to exist" is called "cause." 

I agree that this is different from the way we use the word "cause" today. But I didn't decide the translation.

It's only important if we're talking about First Cause arguments; we have to know what the word means as used in that case. Aristotle and Thomas's First Cause argument means "there has to be a First Cause for other things to exist."

It seems you are enamoured with aristotle. Why should I or anyone else give a flying fuck about aristotle?

Wikipedia:

Aitia, from Greek αἰτία, was the word that Aristotle used to refer to the causal explanation that has traditionally been translated as "cause", but this specialized, technical, philosophical usage of the word "cause" does not correspond exactly to its most usual applications in everyday English language.[4] The translation of Aristotle's αἰτία that is nearest to current ordinary language could be "question" or "causal explanation",[5][2][4] although any such terms may mask the fact that Aristotelians consider the four causes to be more fundamental in nature than mere explanations. In this article, the peculiar philosophical usage of the word "cause" will be employed, for tradition's sake, but the reader should not be misled by confusing this technical usage with current ordinary language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

I still don't care about aristotle. I care about what I think. I care about what you think. Vomitting forth your thoughts about aristotle tell me nothing about what you think. In fact, it merely tells me that you are in thrall to aristotelian thought. Fine by me if you chose to be such an intellectual coward. Don't expect me to respect it.

[Anomalocaris]

the best evidence is when observations about the system we are in match the observations about the god they are pushing.

Which observations are those?

---

Kind of sounds like the act of creation was involuntary.

Like god was, in fact, a universe farting pixie?

More like god was a pixie in the universe farting.

---

correct.


Agreed.


Also agreed. I would even say that the statement: “X exists” is a tautology if X does, in fact, exist. I don’t think Bel disagrees with any of this, but I’ll let him answer for himself from this point forward.

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

Since energy can be positive and negative, and they can cancel out, does energy actually exist?

[comet]

can cancel out doesn't mean it did ... yet.

If one believes in god one would be the one listing the properties of one's god.

[polymath257]

correct.


Agreed.


Also agreed. I would even say that the statement: “X exists” is a tautology if X does, in fact, exist. I don’t think Bel disagrees with any of this, but I’ll let him answer for himself from this point forward.

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

No, energy isn't all that exists. Energy is a property of quantum particles, but so is momentum, spin, position, etc. Furthermore, the energy isn't invariant between different reference frames, while spin, for example, is.

And no, energy isn't converted into matter. All energy is associated with some particle, and all particles have energy. The 'energy' of a particle is the time component of the energy-momentum vector of that particle. Some particles make up what we call 'matter' (which is made from protons, neutrons, and electrons), but there are other particles (like photons) that do not.

---

the best evidence is when observations about the system we are in match the observations about the god they are pushing.

Which observations are those?

---

Like god was, in fact, a universe farting pixie?

More like god was a pixie in the universe farting.

---

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

Since energy can be positive and negative, and they can cancel out, does energy actually exist?

Um, yes?

[Anomalocaris]

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

No, energy isn't all that exists. Energy is a property of quantum particles, but so is momentum, spin, position, etc. Furthermore, the energy isn't invariant between different reference frames, while spin, for example, is.

And no, energy isn't converted into matter. All energy is associated with some particle, and all particles have energy. The 'energy' of a particle is the time component of the energy-momentum vector of that particle. Some particles make up what we call 'matter' (which is made from protons, neutrons, and electrons), but there are other particles (like photons) that do not.

---

Which observations are those?

---

More like god was a pixie in the universe farting.

---

Since energy can be positive and negative, and they can cancel out, does energy actually exist?

Um, yes?

Does a scalar quantity of zero denotes existence?

[Bucky Ball]

Do you agree that all that actually exists is energy ?
Some of that is converted to matter.
Matter is rearranged temporarily, and those temporary rearrangements are what we perceive as existing.

No, energy isn't all that exists. 

Great then how about you tell us what does.

[polymath257]

No, energy isn't all that exists. 

Great then how about you tell us what does.

Quantum particles

---

No, energy isn't all that exists. Energy is a property of quantum particles, but so is momentum, spin, position, etc. Furthermore, the energy isn't invariant between different reference frames, while spin, for example, is.

And no, energy isn't converted into matter. All energy is associated with some particle, and all particles have energy. The 'energy' of a particle is the time component of the energy-momentum vector of that particle. Some particles make up what we call 'matter' (which is made from protons, neutrons, and electrons), but there are other particles (like photons) that do not.

---

Um, yes?

Does a scalar quantity of zero denotes existence?

That depends. For example, a particle can have zero charge and still exist. It can have zero spin and still exist. The total energy of the universe is thought to be zero and yet the universe exists.

[Foxaèr]

First cause fallacy.

If everything needs a creator, what created your god?

If your answer is “nothing” that negates the claim that everything needs a creator.

Czech mate.

Indeed.

Even if you conclude that god is the cause, you're still stuck in the endless loop of determining the first cause, because you'll always be asking what created the creator.