Comments | eatheiun: A logic line.

eatheiun

A logic line.

Feb 13, 2009 17:06

(only assumption) we are not figments in the dream of an over-imaginative entymologist or, [insert matrix or other false-reality idea here].
Something either exists, or it doesn't. Something cannot half-exist. If god exists, he must actually exist. No evidence for god exists. There is no reason to believe that god exists.

Comments 29

dickdawk March 6 2009, 09:07:29 UTC

"(only assumption) we are not figments in the dream of an over-imaginative entymologist or, [insert matrix or other false-reality idea here ( ... )

eatheiun March 7 2009, 05:00:11 UTC

"None of which have been refuted by any means ( ... )

dickdawk March 7 2009, 10:48:44 UTC

I'll concede that I wrote that last post pretty hastily. Let me clear a few things up ( ... )

(cont.) dickdawk March 7 2009, 10:49:18 UTC

You cry non-sequitur for the second premise when this is merely a contrapositive to normal atheistic arguments! Typical atheistic arguments assert that since there is no explanation to the existence of the universe, there is no God. Now in affirming that atheism is true because the universe has no explanation of its existence, that is to also affirm the logically equivalent claim that if the universe has an explanation of its existence then the explanation is God. The atheist is committed to premise 2 ( ... )

Thread 28

ariroc March 8 2009, 20:24:14 UTC

God exists simply by saying he/it does. I personally happen to think of the universe in fractured paradigm terms.. God exists for some, but not for others, and his relevance is only suited to the paradigms that say he does and is completely ineffectual to the ones that say otherwise. Furthermore, because these paradigms also tend to classify God as omnipotent, mysterious and unknowable, that is the case for him. He can only go as far as a thought form can, given the limitations of human thought and perception.

in other words, there is no god. sortof.

So, yeah, lots of things really do, only half-exist.

dickdawk March 8 2009, 21:07:15 UTC

"Would probably be best to take God out of the argument as there is nothing to suggest that just because something may exist in philosophical theory ( OK without going back I think you premised "must" exist ) there is and can be no proof, physical or philosophical, that that "Thing" is something sentient, let alone God, however ( ... )

glensc March 9 2009, 00:17:46 UTC

I confined it to the metaphysical alone to keep this simpler. But one could conclude that the "metaphysical" that caused the universe would be sentient by necessity due to the universe's fine tuning.

I'm not sure that one could conclude that, more speculate that it might. It's also possible to speculate that the universe has banged and crunched a number of times, each time it rebangs with slightly differing early changes and which, having the same laws of force, make it crunch either sooner or later than the present one we inhabit. Each incarnation causing what is percieved here as fine tuning it.

It's difficult to use words and concepts for something that is postulated as outside of time to be a creator of something as creator, in it's ordinary use, presuposes a time based framework.

You're applying naturalistic laws that govern THIS universe to the metaphysical, and the instance you're talking about is essentially the CREATION of these laws, so how could they already be applicable to the cause before they exist? By a Big Crunch ( ... )

ariroc March 9 2009, 07:59:37 UTC

I was actually just testing the water a bit. Giving myself an opportunity to toy with different versions of the same idea. Nothing worth doing should be done half-assed. More over I'm kind of inserting myself into the middle of a conversation (sorry..) It's an enjoyable subject, fun to tinker with ( ... )