The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice

[FZ+]

i will make an existential claim here. i propose that there is no way to determine objectively my own existence save through a series of inductive arguments which may or may not be flawed, but which do not in any way facilitate a deductive proof. QED.

You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED.

For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to anyone side is self-evidently wrong.

"the fool says in his heart there is no God"

Rather, the fool says in his heart that he knows.

Flipton:

If I went to another planet and saw crankable cars everywhere and no people, I would entertain the option that the people have either died or left because I know that nature has never in my experience produced objects that are made up of hundreds of moving, symetrical metal parts and make a lot of noise when a small metal plate is turned.

And when you go to Mars, and find the sky red instead of blue, you assume that your eyes have gone bad? I am still hinting that the recognition stems from the declaration that the act - cranking - can only be done by a designed thing, and that the identification of this act is a subjective process that cannot be expanded universally. You see, it can easy be argued that the snowflake's unique property is it's exact shape, which gives it the ability to fit into the hole. You can't make a distinction in that way.

And I can as easily make the claim that there is no mechanism for a square metal box encasing assembled parts to happen naturally.

Yes you can - you just said it flies together by chance. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because we have already determined that this is subjective - it is based on what claims you make. And so, we can't expand this as an universal principle.


Back to dschou:

some poetry:

I have always wondered why there are so few atheist poets. Can so few see the beauty there is in chance? That the mad dancing of little dots should give a fresh rhythm of order, and through it great complexity is something that is to me far more wondrous, and deep.

 

[dschou]

----------------------------------------------
quote:

"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."
-----------------------------------------------

allow me to interpret liberally what FZ+ has stated. i, on one hand, axiomatically exist because of the principle premise that my existence remains undisputed. however, God's existence - though likewise axiomatic in nature (by necessity) - cannot be presumed since it is a subject that as yet remains undetermined in the minds of many.

following this argument to its rightful conclusion then (and not to a premature termination as in the above reasoning), my existence is only axiomatic insofar as it remains undisputed. also, God's existence is assured when and only when all agnostic debate ceases (to the effect that we agree that he does exist).

i therefore dispute my own existence. i also declare that God's existence is beyond dispute and, further, that all those who declare to the contrary are purposefully lying in the interests of spurning philosophical debate. so we have it that my existence is disputed while God's is not and therefore God exists while i do not. which begs the question, who is writing this?

i find it truthfully comical that one would purport that God's existence depends on us accepting it. what wilful ignorance - how can anyone justify this untenable position? please do so, or at least try.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:
"For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to anyone side is self-evidently wrong."
-----------------------------------------------

this would seem correct if i didn't know it to be wrong. the truth is, a believer in God stands directly opposite to one who denies his existence. to contemplate a raprochement between the two would be nonsense. therefore, as God's existence is axiomatic, and i do believe in his existence, my entire worldview is shaped by and evolves from this underlying premise. also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.

 

[FZ+]

http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=axiom
"1 a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim "
The existence of god is not generally accepted - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"3 a self-evident statement"
The existence is god is not self-evident - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"4 (Logic) (maths) a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system "
The existence of god is not necessary - ergo, it is not an axiom.

One might note what this does say - in the mind of the believer, where the assumption of God forms the root of other thoughts, the idea of god is axiomatic and consistent. For one who does not beleive, the assumption of God is arbitary and unneccessary. Henceforth this does not at all indicate an absolute right position, and only ignorance lies in calling the other position inherently a fool.

also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

I would call on you to rethink that position - there is a very long road between thinking that "some god" has to exist, than picking a specific one, as that implies not just neutrality but positive disbelief in the infinity of other Gods, which can be considered equally self-evident.

For your information, the fool proposal I made was in fact from Buddhism. Apparently their God (or universal reality, whatever) is wiser.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.

Only if you believe so.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by dschou
----------------------------------------------
quote:

"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."
-----------------------------------------------

allow me to interpret liberally what FZ+ has stated. i, on one hand, axiomatically exist because of the principle premise that my existence remains undisputed. however, God's existence - though likewise axiomatic in nature (by necessity) - cannot be presumed since it is a subject that as yet remains undetermined in the minds of many.

following this argument to its rightful conclusion then (and not to a premature termination as in the above reasoning), my existence is only axiomatic insofar as it remains undisputed. also, God's existence is assured when and only when all agnostic debate ceases (to the effect that we agree that he does exist).

i therefore dispute my own existence. i also declare that God's existence is beyond dispute and, further, that all those who declare to the contrary are purposefully lying in the interests of spurning philosophical debate. so we have it that my existence is disputed while God's is not and therefore God exists while i do not. which begs the question, who is writing this?

i find it truthfully comical that one would purport that God's existence depends on us accepting it. what wilful ignorance - how can anyone justify this untenable position? please do so, or at least try.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:
"For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to anyone side is self-evidently wrong."
-----------------------------------------------

this would seem correct if i didn't know it to be wrong. the truth is, a believer in God stands directly opposite to one who denies his existence. to contemplate a raprochement between the two would be nonsense. therefore, as God's existence is axiomatic, and i do believe in his existence, my entire worldview is shaped by and evolves from this underlying premise. also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.

Where does your outlook on reality in total begin, if not in acknowledging the fact that you are consciouss, and have consciouss awareness of a world, that exists outside, apart and independend of your mind?

You can't state you yourself do not exist, since you are aware that you are. You could just try the assumption that the world of which you are aware, and that is projected into your mind, would not exist independend, apart and outside of your mind.

However, then you have the following facts which you can not explain:
- Where did the world come from? If it is said that the world just exists entirely in your mind, and there is nothing outside of it, then what caused the world to exist?
- Why do we have senses, eyes and ears, if the world itself of which we are aware, would only exist in our mind?
- Why do other people/mind exist, and how can they exist outside and apart of our mind, if everything that exists, exist in our mind?
- Why don't we have all knowledge about everything, since everything would exist in our own minds?
- Why don't we have memories about an infinite past, so that it seems the world started from appearently nothing?

Clearly these questions can not be answered, based on our assumption.
We conclude therefore that our assumption that the world itself, would not exist apart, independend and outside of our mind, is wrong.

So, this means our basic position and our ground for any reasoned assumptions about the world, would have to start from the fact that the world itself, which is reflected and projected in our minds, denotes something that exists independend, outside and apart from our own minds.

This conclusion is satisfactory since it explains:
- Why we ourselves exists, since the world contains all the causes, and also contains our reason for existence
- Why we have senses, since we use them to perceive of the world, and be aware of it.
- Why we don't know everything, since the world exists outside of our mind.
- Why there are other people/minds, who are also aware of the same world
- Why the world itself, did not start, since it already existed before we were there.

I think this assumption is therefore far more reasonable as the assumption that the world would exist entirely within our own mind.

Since we reject that the world could have been entirely dependend on our own consciousness, and we know only directly our own consciousness, this means, we can only account that the world itself exists in objective and material form, without begin or end.

This therefore immediately rejects any creator thing.

 

[Royce]

Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden.
You also said that we have perception, consciousness and awareness, all sujective things, thoughts. And then:

Since we reject that the world could have been entirely dependend on our own consciousness, and we know only directly our own consciousness, this means, we can only account that the world itself exists in objective and material form, without begin or end.

It is not that the objective world is dependent on our consciousness, it is that this is the only way that we can be aware of the world. We therefore have to assume that the objective material world exists with out any supporting evidence other than the subective awareness of ourselves and others.

Having already made an unsupported assumption there is no reason or reasonable need to assump that such as reality is without begin and without end. There is however supported reason to believe that the world, universe did indeed have a beginning and will have and end reguardless of the semantic argument of some 19th century philosophers.

There is no such thing as subjective objectivity nor can the subjective ever become objective. The terms are mutually exclusive and contradictory thus it is an oxymoron. We, therefore, have already agreed that both objectivity and subjectivity exists. This contradicts the position of extreme materialist in which only the objective material world exist and existence is only possible if something else exist outside of something else. This is rubbish. Either something exists indepent of anything else or it doesn't.

As the universe contains everything that exists by definition, nothing exists outside of the universe. By Marx's reasoning this make the universe nonexistent as there is nothing outside of itself.

Karl Marx was not a true philosopher,but had an agenda. He was attempting to rationalize and justify his political and economic revolution. His ability to reason philosophically was almost as good as his knowledge of economics in the real world and of human nature as it really is. If you care to look around you and see what a success communism and its classless society is compared to capitalism and democratic republics you will begin to get an inkling of his faulty thinking. That is unless of course he was being intentionally deceptive from the beginning, which wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
And when you go to Mars, and find the sky red instead of blue, you assume that your eyes have gone bad? I am still hinting that the recognition stems from the declaration that the act - cranking - can only be done by a designed thing, and that the identification of this act is a subjective process that cannot be expanded universally.

I Agree! For the most part. But with the sky example I think you are making the same mistake that you made with the boulder example by assuming that I am proposing some strict line of rules to be followed. And then you apply it in a limited situation to come to absurd conclusions. If I went to Mars and saw a red sky I would NOT think something was wrong with my eyes. At least not at first. Because the blue sky color that I'm used to can be explained by the properties of the planet earth, it makes sense that the sky could very well be a different color on Mars. So let me say this one more time. I think that when confronted with a situation of EXTREME improbability based on all the knowledge and experience we have at our disposal(this includes the physics of sky color) we then investigate the truth with the best inductive reasoning we can muster.

What I'm talking about is the manner in which an "investigation" into the unknown takes place. When in the mode of investigation, all options should be left open and the clues looked at openly and then we make a conclusion based on the best knowledge that we have. What I am NOT talking about is a set of rules to follow to call something knowledge or have it included in a textbook. You and I both know that this is all subjective but a line has to be drawn in each situation. In some situations you may actually have enough knowledge to very reasonably suggest that something was designed and not generated by chance. Wether you have enough knowledge to do this could always be wrong but yet you did this very thing when you claimed to have enough knowledge about humans to say I can't levitate things. So what if you actually acquire as much knowledge of Mars? Might you also not be able to apply some judgement here as well,subjective as it is? We can't just ignore the obvious simply because we're going to assume that chance built everything. We don't do this in real life and I don't think we should pretend we do just because we're talking about design.

You see, it can easy be argued that the snowflake's unique property is it's exact shape, which gives it the ability to fit into the hole. You can't make a distinction in that way.

I can't? Why not? You derive the distinction from an interaction with an outside thing which has nothing to do with the formation of the snowflake to begin with. This can be easily distinguished from a snowflake that sings when it has a certain arrangement.

Yes you can - you just said it flies together by chance. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because we have already determined that this is subjective - it is based on what claims you make. And so, we can't expand this as an universal principle.

All it says is that we have to apply judgement based on what we know to all unknown situations. To argue that we should enter the lab with an assumption as opposed to being open to all options ESPECIALLY when you may have some evidence to suggest otherwise just seems irresponsible.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by FZ+
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=axiom
"1 a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim "
The existence of god is not generally accepted - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"3 a self-evident statement"
The existence is god is not self-evident - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"4 (Logic) (maths) a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system "
The existence of god is not necessary - ergo, it is not an axiom.

One might note what this does say - in the mind of the believer, where the assumption of God forms the root of other thoughts, the idea of god is axiomatic and consistent. For one who does not beleive, the assumption of God is arbitary and unneccessary.

this is obviously inconsistent with the argument proposed in a previous correspondance, as i have acknowledged the fallacy of that reasoning in my most recent posting (see above)

"...you got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent..."

until this inconsistency is unraveled or my argument directly rebutted, the claim that existence can be determined objectively or established via an axiom only by rule of general acceptance remains untenable. consequently, future argument along that vein is rendered superfluous (as is your frequent use of the word ergo).

now with regards to your final statement, the one which most strongly reveals your AXIOMATIC post-modernist world-view, it is incumbent on me to reveal some flaws in your position:

1. "only if you believe so", quite wrong. either God exists or he doesn't. if one were to counter that God exists only in my mind, then what is really being stated is that he doesn't exist at all, for anything that exists only in my mind is finite (a finite-subjective mind - Feuerbach) and God is declared infinite by definition of his existence. therefore he cannot exist in my mind, a contradiction. he can only exist as the creator of my mind and outside my mind.

2. post-modernism in general has no real practical application. laws and customs are applied generally, not specifically. likewise, peoples interact on a scale of multitudes, not as individuals. it is therefore impossible to establish norms which fully take into account the notions of individuality since the moral code, which is subscribed to and prescribed by the law, is dependant on personal beliefs. therefore, since post-modernism heeds no ground with respect to its claims for absolute tolerance (which is itself a vacuous concept), and it therefore cannot be applied, it is meaningless and amounts to little more than mere intellectual exercise - but without the benefit of gained wisdom.

merci beaucoup.

some more poetry:

i thank you God for most this amazing
day: for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky; and for everything
which is natural which is infinite which is yes

(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun's birthday; this is the birth
day of life and of love and wings:and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth

how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any - lifted from the no
of all nothing - human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?

(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

-E.E. Cummings

from "100 Selected Poems", Grove Press, New York

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where does your outlook on reality in total begin, if not in acknowledging the fact that you are consciouss, and have consciouss awareness of a world, that exists outside, apart and independend of your mind?

You can't state you yourself do not exist, since you are aware that you are. You could just try the assumption that the world of which you are aware, and that is projected into your mind, would not exist independend, apart and outside of your mind.

the word is independent. note the 't'.

However, then you have the following facts which you can not explain:
- Where did the world come from? If it is said that the world just exists entirely in your mind, and there is nothing outside of it, then what caused the world to exist?
- Why do we have senses, eyes and ears, if the world itself of which we are aware, would only exist in our mind?
- Why do other people/mind exist, and how can they exist outside and apart of our mind, if everything that exists, exist in our mind?
- Why don't we have all knowledge about everything, since everything would exist in our own minds?
- Why don't we have memories about an infinite past, so that it seems the world started from appearently nothing?

Clearly these questions can not be answered, based on our assumption.
We conclude therefore that our assumption that the world itself, would not exist apart, independend and outside of our mind, is wrong.

our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate this to the plane of objectivity. also, be aware that this in no way excludes either my own, or God's existence (refer to my previous post on this matter). rather, i readily profess both my own and God's existence. the conclusions previously drawn regarding this matter of my existence were so drawn in the hopes of revealing the illegitamacy of the views put forth by FZ+, since they necessitated (or at least allowed) my own non-existence with claims of general acceptance being the sole requirement for objective (or axiomatic) existence.

finally, if, supposing that the questions could be answered only (to one's knowledge) by accepting my existence, then this would in no way comprise an objective proof. this is a fundamental axiom of all scientific endeavour: a theory can be verified and generally accepted, but not to the exclusion of all other theories (so long as those theories, which may or may not be known, are consistent with the SUBJECTIVE sensations). for instance (and i do deplore giving inane examples), if two theories explained why the sky was blue, and neither contradicted any data collected by the senses, then either one could be held as true. even if only one theory explained the sky's blueness, it could NOT be held as absolute, thus negating any future hypothesis. so we have it that the now famous questions may be answered conveniently if my existence is assumed, but they do not necessitate it.

This therefore immediately rejects any creator thing.

nothing will. stop trying. it is a fruitless endeavour.

 

[FZ+]

1. "only if you believe so", quite wrong. either God exists or he doesn't. if one were to counter that God exists only in my mind, then what is really being stated is that he doesn't exist at all, for anything that exists only in my mind is finite (a finite-subjective mind - Feuerbach) and God is declared infinite by definition of his existence. therefore he cannot exist in my mind, a contradiction. he can only exist as the creator of my mind and outside my mind.

It seems that you have missed the main thrust of my argument. You are claiming that God is existent as a self-evident axiom, and thus does not require a deductive proof. Correct? I am saying that by failing to justify your statement that God is axiomatic in an objective sense, all you have said is a case of implication - that if you have a world view founded on the assumption of God's existence, it is natural for God to exist. It is a statement of a belief system - what is fundamentally lacking is the tie that makes it an account of the real world. Consider for example that it is equally valid to make axiomatic, as some have done, that a being such as God cannot exist - this too leads to a consistent world view. Leading to the consideration that this form of argument tells us nothing of the existence of God, but only what you believe in.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by dschou

our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate this to the plane of objectivity. also, be aware that this in no way excludes either my own, or God's existence (refer to my previous post on this matter). rather, i readily profess both my own and God's existence.

[/b]

You have failed to demonstrate why it would be necessary to assume God. Since we conceive of God as a consciouss entity, how do you know of this 'mind of God' since all you have is your own mind?

You state that awareness of the world, and the projection in the mind, is purely subjective.
If that were the case, then you in fact assume that no such outer reality exists or has to exist.

Where does your awareness about the world then originate in?
From your mind alone?

So, in other words, the world in total would only exist in your subjective awareness of it.

But then explain me this:
- Where does the world come from? It could not have existed always in your mind, since your mind does not have infinite past memories
- Why are there other minds, who claim the same subjectivity as you?
Do these minds exist in the real (objective) sense, or are they all PART of YOUR mind then?
- Why do we have senses? If everything already exists within the mind, what are they good for then?
- Why don't we have all knowledge? If everything already exists within the mind, why wouldn't we have all knowledge?
- How can your mind exist only in subjective form? There are other people who can state the existence of both you, and your mindly awareness. This means your mind and you exist in the objective sense.

the conclusions previously drawn regarding this matter of my existence were so drawn in the hopes of revealing the illegitamacy of the views put forth by FZ+, since they necessitated (or at least allowed) my own non-existence with claims of general acceptance being the sole requirement for objective (or axiomatic) existence.

finally, if, supposing that the questions could be answered only (to one's knowledge) by accepting my existence, then this would in no way comprise an objective proof. this is a fundamental axiom of all scientific endeavour: a theory can be verified and generally accepted, but not to the exclusion of all other theories (so long as those theories, which may or may not be known, are consistent with the SUBJECTIVE sensations). for instance (and i do deplore giving inane examples), if two theories explained why the sky was blue, and neither contradicted any data collected by the senses, then either one could be held as true. even if only one theory explained the sky's blueness, it could NOT be held as absolute, thus negating any future hypothesis. so we have it that the now famous questions may be answered conveniently if my existence is assumed, but they do not necessitate it.
nothing will. stop trying. it is a fruitless endeavour.

You are explaining nothing, you are just presenting us an axiom with no back up, and it explans nothing.

You state that your existence is primary to the world. Well, that is a simple lie, since the world already existed before your existence in mindly form.

Since we do exist in mindly form, and which can be stated in the objective sense, there needs to be a cause for our existence in mindly form.

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.

It is as simple as that!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.

Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what really goes on. As I have showed, even in the context of human society the term "creation" does not explain anything.

Now "intend" is also a strange concept.Does the sun "intend" to shine, and emit light? Do atoms and molecules "intend" to combine into more complex forms?

Same as with the word "creation" you can not use the word "intend" to describe anything in nature.

It is usefull only in human communication.
But it does not have an "absolute" meaning, and can not be used outside of the human context.

Wether we act by an outside pulse or drive, that makes us do things, or are aware of our intends, is rather arbitrarily.
We say we "intend" to do things, and sometimes our plan comes out.
But do we know if we "intend" our intentions? Maybe it was some outside force acting on us, we can not make even clear to ourselves.
Even so, we say that we "intended" things, which might not be the case.

The idea that all human made things are a "design" is already wrong.
We don't know what design works and which don't work, so we always progress in small steps, and see which works and which not.

The "design" of anything, is therefore always an interaction with the material reality, and keep those things that work, and reject the things that don't.

What comes out of that after many cycles of "micro creation" and testing, is not what anyone had intended it to be before we started it.

"Intend" and "creation" therefore are simply bad concepts.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what really goes on. As I have showed, even in the context of human society the term "creation" does not explain anything.

Wow. Talk about missing the point. I have no problem with the definition of the word "creation" or it's use in this discussion. I was only suggesting that it not be used because we have many undisciplined debaters who loose focus and become irrational(or more irrational in some cases) when they see that word.

The "design" of anything, is therefore always an interaction with the material reality, and keep those things that work, and reject the things that don't.

What comes out of that after many cycles of "micro creation" and testing, is not what anyone had intended it to be before we started it.

"Intend" and "creation" therefore are simply bad concepts. [/B]

This whole speech on "intent" is completely irrelevant to the discussion that's going on here. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter. There's a lot more being discussed here than just semantics, Heusdens. Since you are getting bogged down in the words then let me explain it to you without those words. What is being discussed is "how can we distinguish between a thing that exists because willful beings directly influenced it to exist and those that occur through random natural processes?" Whether you call it intent, creation, design or the result of a long plug and chug process, the end result still owes it's existence to a willful being and not the other more random natural forces. Whether the end result was the original intent all along is irrelevant. As long as each step was directly and nonrandomly affected by a will being.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.

It is as simple as that! [/B]

This is the problem with this debate. No matter what side you choose you always have to postulate that something either created itself or has always been. The mindly existence you speak of can't create itself, you say. Nothing can create itself then. So now we're stuck with assuming something has always been. And your only reason for assuming this mindly existsnce has not always been is because you don't have all knowledge? Seems like a very narrow view of the possibilities to me.

Just to be clear let me say that I am not one of these people who thinks that the objective world doesn't exists. I am only stepping in because my position is that you can't know one way or the other and have no reason to be so confidently conclusive. All you have is unanswered questions. And if we could make conclusions based on unanswered questions then we can make all sorts of conclusions . Science currently can't explain consciousness for example. So this can be used to make all sorts of mystical claims. But just as the science deacons will tell you...it doesn't mean we want be able to explain it sometime in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket Heusdens because it just might have a hole in it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
This is the problem with this debate. No matter what side you choose you always have to postulate that something either created itself or has always been. The mindly existence you speak of can't create itself, you say. Nothing can create itself then. So now we're stuck with assuming something has always been. And your only reason for assuming this mindly existsnce has not always been is because you don't have all knowledge? Seems like a very narrow view of the possibilities to me.

Just to be clear let me say that I am not one of these people who thinks that the objective world doesn't exists. I am only stepping in because my position is that you can't know one way or the other and have no reason to be so confidently conclusive. All you have is unanswered questions. And if we could make conclusions based on unanswered questions then we can make all sorts of conclusions . Science currently can't explain consciousness for example. So this can be used to make all sorts of mystical claims. But just as the science deacons will tell you...it doesn't mean we want be able to explain it sometime in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket Heusdens because it just might have a hole in it.

I agree with you on this.

But to accept the fact that we can't have all knowledge (or absolute knowledge) does not give credit to accepting all kind of myths and supernatural things either.

I merely explain that this does not affect in the least that our ordinary vision of reality is one in which our consciousness is a seconday feature of the world, and that the world itself has been there always.

Science can already explain a lot, but not everything. We have to accept the fact that we have only relative knowledge, and never complete knowledge.

From your consciousness, you can't conclude something else, since that would lead to some or other form of solipsism (assuming the world just exists in the mind and not outside of it).

The introduction of Gods (which we neither can know) isn't very helpfull either, it merely mystificates human reality. Religion assumes an absurd thing, namely absolute knowledge. It makes absolute statements about reality.


Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. For dialectics, the Absolute is only the whole movement through various relative stages of understanding, but the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
This whole speech on "intent" is completely irrelevant to the discussion that's going on here. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter. There's a lot more being discussed here than just semantics, Heusdens. Since you are getting bogged down in the words then let me explain it to you without those words. What is being discussed is "how can we distinguish between a thing that exists because willful beings directly influenced it to exist and those that occur through random natural processes?" Whether you call it intent, creation, design or the result of a long plug and chug process, the end result still owes it's existence to a willful being and not the other more random natural forces. Whether the end result was the original intent all along is irrelevant. As long as each step was directly and nonrandomly affected by a will being.

But that is precisely what I am discussing about.
Nature does not work with total randomness (it only looks that way, since we don't have absolute knowledge), and the human intend and will, is very relative also.

So what looks like an absolute opposite (design or change) in the end comes down to a similar development process.

Humans design a lot, but a lot of what is designed or invented, does not make it in the real world. What decides then what invention is good or not good?
There in most cases so many things involved in design processe of complex things, that there is no way it can be brought back to an individual will or intend. It's the permanent interaction between consciousness and the material world, that is the basis for these kind of development.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by FZ+
It seems that you have missed the main thrust of my argument. You are claiming that God is existent as a self-evident axiom, and thus does not require a deductive proof. Correct? I am saying that by failing to justify your statement that God is axiomatic in an objective sense, all you have said is a case of implication - that if you have a world view founded on the assumption of God's existence, it is natural for God to exist. It is a statement of a belief system - what is fundamentally lacking is the tie that makes it an account of the real world. Consider for example that it is equally valid to make axiomatic, as some have done, that a being such as God cannot exist - this too leads to a consistent world view. Leading to the consideration that this form of argument tells us nothing of the existence of God, but only what you believe in.

no. that is quite wrong. i have not missed the thrust of your argument. i have dealt with it head on by stating that there is some truth regarding God's existence and that regardless of the (in)consistencies of one's worldview, he either exists or doesn't, but not both. he cannot be relegated to the role of playing schrodinger's cat. i have simply used your original premise - that my existence is likewise axiomatic and dependant on the general acceptance thereof - to show that, had this some truth to it, God's existence could likewise be determined. if you fail to see that, then so be it.

i have ALWAYS maintained that God's existence is by necessity AXIOMATIC and hence it cannot be proven. why must i reiterate this stance time and again? my original post in this thread stated, and i quote:

"God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me."

this is final, as i grow weary of unnecessary argument divergences.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by heusdens

You have failed to demonstrate why it would be necessary to assume God. Since we conceive of God as a consciouss entity, how do you know of this 'mind of God' since all you have is your own mind?

You state that awareness of the world, and the projection in the mind, is purely subjective.
If that were the case, then you in fact assume that no such outer reality exists or has to exist.

Where does your awareness about the world then originate in?
From your mind alone?

So, in other words, the world in total would only exist in your subjective awareness of it.

But then explain me this:
- Where does the world come from? It could not have existed always in your mind, since your mind does not have infinite past memories
- Why are there other minds, who claim the same subjectivity as you?
Do these minds exist in the real (objective) sense, or are they all PART of YOUR mind then?
- Why do we have senses? If everything already exists within the mind, what are they good for then?
- Why don't we have all knowledge? If everything already exists within the mind, why wouldn't we have all knowledge?
- How can your mind exist only in subjective form? There are other people who can state the existence of both you, and your mindly awareness. This means your mind and you exist in the objective sense.

You are explaining nothing, you are just presenting us an axiom with no back up, and it explans nothing.

You state that your existence is primary to the world. Well, that is a simple lie, since the world already existed before your existence in mindly form.

Since we do exist in mindly form, and which can be stated in the objective sense, there needs to be a cause for our existence in mindly form.

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.
It is as simple as that!

Allow me to reiterate the words of our esteemed colleague m. Royce:
"Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden."

this is correct in a magnitude as yet unparallelled in this discussion. i too believe that i exist OBJECTIVELY and INDEPENDANT of other's thoughts. but this belief is a result of speculative and inductive reasoning and does not constitute a proof.

besides, you have sidestepped the issue quite nicely hseudens. we began this thread in the hopes of discussing, to some conclusion, the existence of God, not me. i had hoped that my discussion of my own existence could be adopted as an argumentative statement in response to those made by FZ+, but not as a diversion to my original postulate (see above).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
But that is precisely what I am discussing about.
Nature does not work with total randomness (it only looks that way, since we don't have absolute knowledge), and the human intend and will, is very relative also.

Exactly how do you define "random"? And then what does it mean to "look random"? And if we don't have absolute knowledge and therefore things look random, how is it that we know enough to say they aren't?

 

[Royce]

dschou, I'm afraid that logical inductive or deductive reasoning will not work with our 'esteemed colleagues'. They, as ojective materialist, require objective proof for that which is not even subjective but spiritual and transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. They do this knowing that it is impossible so that they are never proven wrong. They use the same tactics when discussing objectivity vs subjectity or materialism vs idealism.

You pointed out earlier that you did not need to prove the existence of God. I believe that it is impossible to prove God to anyone even another believer. God is ultimately personal and will when we are ready to accept him prove undenialbly his presence to us, individually.

As a logical or philosophical discussion you will only find a few who will debate the issue in a reasonable manner but you must make no assumptions or unsupported statements without first declaring them as such. You have already been called on such thing a couple of times.

No one, despite their stance, is immune. This is a free-for-all, no- holds-barred, no quarter asked and none given melee. Having said that, welcome to the PF's. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
dschou, I'm afraid that logical inductive or deductive reasoning will not work with our 'esteemed colleagues'. They, as ojective materialist, require objective proof for that which is not even subjective but spiritual and transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. They do this knowing that it is impossible so that they are never proven wrong. They use the same tactics when discussing objectivity vs subjectity or materialism vs idealism.

You pointed out earlier that you did not need to prove the existence of God. I believe that it is impossible to prove God to anyone even another believer. God is ultimately personal and will when we are ready to accept him prove undenialbly his presence to us, individually.

As a logical or philosophical discussion you will only find a few who will debate the issue in a reasonable manner but you must make no assumptions or unsupported statements without first declaring them as such. You have already been called on such thing a couple of times.

No one, despite their stance, is immune. This is a free-for-all, no- holds-barred, no quarter asked and none given melee. Having said that, welcome to the PF's. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The problem is, you can fill in anything in place of the word 'God' and it is equally valid(or invalid, really). Fairies and elves, leprechauns, compassionate conservatives, and any other myth you can think of.

 

[Royce]

or even a logical liberal, reasoning socialist, rational communist or even BH's invisible pink unicorn. Yes that is the problem but adding more mythical creatures into the discussing accomplishes nothing. To discuss or argue a point or thought it is better to keep it a point or single thought. While obfuscation may work other place it doesn't here. We are all familiar with the tactic "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."

 

[FZ+]

i have ALWAYS maintained that God's existence is by necessity AXIOMATIC and hence it cannot be proven.

But you see, by this statement, you have invalidated any debate because an axiom is by definition something that is generally accepted - and neccessarily generally accepted. But it is clear that it is not - and so God is an assumption, not an absolute axiom. Note that this says nothing as to a sense of absolute truth - a large number of things are assumptions. This only says we don't know for sure, and thus there is a capacity for discussion. Geddit?

I'm not making an attack on theism at all, I am making a clarification of definitions. By the meaning of the word, god - existence or non-existence - cannot be considered as generally axiomatic.

Never proven wrong, but never proven right - that is the nature of God.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by FZ+
But you see, by this statement, you have invalidated any debate because an axiom is by definition something that is generally accepted - and neccessarily generally accepted. But it is clear that it is not - and so God is an assumption, not an absolute axiom. Note that this says nothing as to a sense of absolute truth - a large number of things are assumptions. This only says we don't know for sure, and thus there is a capacity for discussion. Geddit?

I'm not making an attack on theism at all, I am making a clarification of definitions. By the meaning of the word, god - existence or non-existence - cannot be considered as generally axiomatic.

Never proven wrong, but never proven right - that is the nature of God.

firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.

secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.

finally, as the existence of God as yet remains within the realm of the unproven, we must discuss not those things which might prove his existence (since i have argued that these do not exist) but we must rather look at the consequences of accepting/rejecting his existence. in this way, a tree may be known by its fruit; if by rejecting his existence certain undeniable effects can be established, than, to deal with these effects, we may induce some unequivocal notions as to his existence. these undeniable effects include, but are not limited to, each one of the questions which hseudens has posed, the very concepts of good/evil and, most notably, life and death.

ps. am i the only one who is mightily attempting to ignore the inane rubbish that dribbles forth from the mouth of zero? (s)he speaks only in half-truths and vague generalizations and simply regurgitates everything that is in pseudo-philosophical vogue.

 

[BoulderHead]

*sniff, sniff*

Originally posted by Royce
or even a logical liberal, reasoning socialist, rational communist or even BH's invisible pink unicorn.

I just knew there was a reason why my ears were ringing !

Yes that is the problem but adding more mythical creatures into the discussing accomplishes nothing.

I would argue just the opposite, for it serves to remind people that we are actually talking about something extremely vague here which people seem to all have their own different take on. People may think they are speaking of the same thing when only using that three-letter word yet from what I’ve seen no two people share the same notion of what such a thing might be. The reason for this is because the imagination is man’s principle religious faculty (credit to Karen Armstrong). I like to make sure people never lose sight of this.

To discuss or argue a point or thought it is better to keep it a point or single thought. While obfuscation may work other place it doesn't here. We are all familiar with the tactic "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."

Yes, but the primary source of this material comes from people’s imaginations.

 

[FZ+]

firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.

Oops. I meant the nature the God argument.

secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.

No it is not.
Let's use some analogies.

Axiom: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an assumption, and it is generally held to be true, and it is necessary as part of any known mathematical system. Hence it is an axiom, though it cannot be proved.

Assume: Square root of two is rational
This is an assumption, but it is not generally held to be true, it is not necessary as the alternative exists that root 2 is irrational. Hence it is not an axiom. (in this case, the consistency of the resulting argument has been disproved. In the case of God, it is incomplete.)

Maybe we are just arguing in semantics here, but...

he speaks only in half-truths and vague generalizations and simply regurgitates everything that is in pseudo-philosophical vogue.

It has been informed that he is quite cuddly and happy at times. But such a state is understandably very hard to observe... If he bothers you too much, ignore him.



Let me just sum up my position:

I believe that significant in the universe exists only relative to an observer.
I believe that chance can account for complex form, and the mind is itself a manifestation of complexity - a holistic existence, rather than a fundamental one. Mankind can therefore be just a branch of that "chance".
I believe that an universe without god is as wholly consistent and logical as an universe without.
I believe that it is impossible to determine absolutely which of the alternatives exists.
Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility of any god, I choose to act on the assumption that god does not exist, because I believe it to be the better way.

Simple as that.

 

[Royce]

But by the same reasoning doesn't everything?
Actually I think is more the inability of man to conceive God adequately. We have trouble enough trying to comprehend life or ourselves much less such a thing as God. Even if you do not believe it is beyond our mental ability to conceive apart of what God would be. We are forced to use our imagination and it is alway not up to the task. This is, I think, the main reason why there are so many opinions of what God is or would be if he did exist. Is God everything and everything of him or is God simply the no longer interested creator or is God a personal God who is a part of us all annd individually as well as the creator. The questions are endless. Even more than if he does not exist.

This is why it is such a facinating topic for discussion even while knowing that nothing certain can come of any of it. It at least exercises and stretches our minds.

Are you following me? I can't even make snide remarks hiden deep in other threads.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
But by the same reasoning doesn't everything?

Perhaps, but it is raised to some degree when dealing with this topic.

Actually I think is more the inability of man to conceive God adequately.

Because we are left to our own devices, think I. In this position what recourse is there but some introspection and a lot of imagination?

We have trouble enough trying to comprehend life or ourselves much less such a thing as God. Even if you do not believe it is beyond our mental ability to conceive apart of what God would be.

Indeed.

We are forced to use our imagination and it is alway not up to the task. This is, I think, the main reason why there are so many opinions of what God is or would be if he did exist.

One million people and likely as many fuzzy ideas.

Is God everything and everything of him or is God simply the no longer interested creator or is God a personal God who is a part of us all annd individually as well as the creator. The questions are endless. Even more than if he does not exist.

For me, projecting human traits into the mind of a god presents more problems than it solves. But being human I cannot think in terms alien to my essential nature. I cannot, for example, imagine what it would be like for a god to posses logic completely alien to my own. In fact, I cannot even imagine god at all, such a concept is completely hidden to my mind.

This is why it is such a facinating topic for discussion even while knowing that nothing certain can come of any of it. It at least exercises and stretches our minds.

To be able to imagine the unimaginable is, to me at least, simply unimaginable. This makes it an exercise in futility, imho, hence my affection for the following;

It is terrible to see a man who has the incomprehensible in his grasp, does not know what to do with it, and sits playing with a toy called God.
-Tolstoy

You see, I have never, despite what some may think, used that quote merely to mock people (although I’m a big fan of humor). The meaning for me runs much deeper than that.

[edit]
I should explain futher about it being "an exercise in futility", lest I be misunderstood. I'm not saying it shouldn't be attempted, I just believe it is an impossible task.
[/edit]

Are you following me? I can't even make snide remarks hiden deep in other threads.

No, sorry if it appeared so.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oops. I meant the nature the God argument.


No it is not.
Let's use some analogies.

Axiom: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an assumption, and it is generally held to be true, and it is necessary as part of any known mathematical system. Hence it is an axiom, though it cannot be proved.

Assume: Square root of two is rational
This is an assumption, but it is not generally held to be true, it is not necessary as the alternative exists that root 2 is irrational. Hence it is not an axiom. (in this case, the consistency of the resulting argument has been disproved. In the case of God, it is incomplete.)

the examples are flawed. firstly, 1+1 = 2 is not an axiom. the axiom employed is more general and is related to the closure of integers under addition as well as the definition of the number system. secondly, that the rationality of the square root of two is not an axiom depends not at all on whether it is accepted as such. it is not an axiom for at least two reasons:
1. it is based on at least 3 other mathematical axioms
2. it is completely inconsistent with the axioms on which it is based, yielding an inconsistent mathematical framework (and thus it can be disproven)

an axiom is a fundamental assumption which defines, in a logical sequence, a consistent framework (and i do think we are arguing semantics here. yet in some cases the entire foundation of the thing being discussed rests on the razor-edge support of semantics).

Let me just sum up my position:

I believe that significant in the universe exists only relative to an observer.
I believe that chance can account for complex form, and the mind is itself a manifestation of complexity - a holistic existence, rather than a fundamental one. Mankind can therefore be just a branch of that "chance".
I believe that an universe without god is as wholly consistent and logical as an universe without.
I believe that it is impossible to determine absolutely which of the alternatives exists.
Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility of any god, I choose to act on the assumption that god does not exist, because I believe it to be the better way.

Simple as that.

i appreciate the use of the word belief, as it is entirely a belief system. you have CHOSEN to DISBELIEVE God and hence have followed your own mind as your absolute overseer - which will lead you to the worst absurdities imaginable - but still, you have not taken the fatal error of a great many atheists in attempting to disprove God's existence. however, God's existence depends not one iota on your acceptance of it, and, as you are most certainly incorrect in your stance (and deliberately, i might add) you will be brought to account with respect to this matter. therefore, allow me to repeat myself (once again):

"finally, as the existence of God as yet remains within the realm of the unproven, we must discuss not those things which might prove his existence (since i have argued that these do not exist) but we must rather look at the consequences of accepting/rejecting his existence. in this way, a tree may be known by its fruit; if by rejecting his existence certain undeniable effects can be established, than, to deal with these effects, we may induce some unequivocal notions as to his existence. these undeniable effects include, but are not limited to, each one of the questions which hseudens has posed, the very concepts of good/evil and, most notably, life and death."

 

[FZ+]

an axiom is a fundamental assumption which defines, in a logical sequence, a consistent framework

That's not in any dictionary I read. The world generally accepted, self-evident and necessary are used there.

you have CHOSEN to DISBELIEVE God

No. I have chosen not to believe in God, because I consider it's existence at present irrelevant.

hence have followed your own mind as your absolute overseer

No. I have found no evidence that an absolute overseer can even exist. In fact, all observations work against it.

which will lead you to the worst absurdities imaginable

Such as? If we do call the existence of God axiomatic, as you attempt to do, I can label the consequences of God's existence similarly absurd - as it contravenes my fundamental axiom. That is, in your terms, a fatal error. But choosing the positive belief of a specific God is also a "fatal error" in that way.

however, God's existence depends not one iota on your acceptance of it

Nor does god's non-existence. Note one thing here - your personal declaration of God, existence or not, is completely meaningless in any argument. You, while giving a sensible response on one hand, have committed the classic flaw of commiting your personal subjectivity as an absolute fact. While X or Y position cannot be proved, absolutism can.

as you are most certainly incorrect in your stance (and deliberately, i might add) you will be brought to account with respect to this matter.

You see, the one thing of clarity from all that you have said is that such certainty is immediately unfounded. There is no basis for such an exclamation, and you know it.

When you talk about the consequences of God - consider which God. And consider which godless reality.

 

[Zero]

Don't you just love the thinly veiled threat in that post, FZ+? He seems to be saying "You will burn, infidel, for denying the truth!Mwahaha!"

On the other hand, lacking belief is things that don't seem to exist is perfectly reasonable.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by FZ+
That's not in any dictionary I read. The world generally accepted, self-evident and necessary are used there.

fine. to avoid clouding the real issue, i shall henceforth use the term "fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses"

No. I have found no evidence that an absolute overseer can even exist. In fact, all observations work against it.

yet you must live your life. each day you are faced with decisions, and ultimately, those decisions are made (even if they are not made, a decision not to make them has been made). in the end, your absolute overseer is the thing which precipitates your decision making process. thus an absolute overseer does exist and either you believe in God's existence, or you denounce any such existence and depend on your own self-governance.

Such as? If we do call the existence of God axiomatic, as you attempt to do, I can label the consequences of God's existence similarly absurd - as it contravenes my fundamental axiom. That is, in your terms, a fatal error. But choosing the positive belief of a specific God is also a "fatal error" in that way.

on the contrary. you can ignore God and scorn his existence but you can never rightly disprove it, as you yourself have previously agreed to.

Nor does god's non-existence. Note one thing here - your personal declaration of God, existence or not, is completely meaningless in any argument. You, while giving a sensible response on one hand, have committed the classic flaw of commiting your personal subjectivity as an absolute fact. While X or Y position cannot be proved, absolutism can.

thats just it. my personal opinion regarding God's existence is meaningless, just as yours to the contrary is as well. nevertheless, God either exists, or he doesn't and hence, we are directed to look for consequences of this fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses.

You see, the one thing of clarity from all that you have said is that such certainty is immediately unfounded. There is no basis for such an exclamation, and you know it.

exactement. i have stated this originally ("you must believe it...").

When you talk about the consequences of God - consider which God. And consider which godless reality.

there is either one God or no gods since God is by nature all powerful. and there is only one reality, of which we will all at sometime come to understand.

my first post in this forum was typed in full enthusiasm, with the (since revealed as false) idealism that i could effect some change in the opinions of the readers. it is disheartening, to say the least, to hear responses which continue, without pause or reproach, to utter what has been uttered now for millenia by the hearts of man. some small change in thought patterns, some minute - almost imperceptible - adjustment of bias, that is all i have wanted. but alas, the prospect of change for the better is but the opiate of my mind and is not meant to be. i therefore bid the interested parties adieau, as this will be my last correspondance in this thread.

till we meet on the ramparts,
with all grace and respect,
dschou

 

[Zero]

Belief in deities IS self-governance, really, since there are no gods making laws, and you choose to follow what you choose to believe in.

 

[FZ+]

in the end, your absolute overseer is the thing which precipitates your decision making process.

Then, to use your word I have an absolute overseer. But it's nature is not absolute. My non-absolute absolute overseer is my subjective view of the world - what I see. I do not govern myself, because "Me" does not have an absolute existence. I am part of the world and merely exist as part of the world. As there is no evidence for absolute, one way government.

on the contrary. you can ignore God and scorn his existence but you can never rightly disprove it, as you yourself have previously agreed to.

And you can never prove it, as you have failed to remember. In this way, a certainty in God is a fatal error - in precisely the same way a certainty in no god is.

my personal opinion regarding God's existence is meaningless, just as yours to the contrary is as well.

Strange, but you again seem to have forgotten what my point of view is. My point of view is that WE DON'T KNOW. This is far from meaningless. Your point of view is that we do (and not just that. We "certainly" know), and this is meaningless without justification.

exactement. i have stated this originally ("you must believe it...").

And yet you choose to flaunt it my making the meaninglessly absolute assertion that I "am wrong, and will be held accountable."

there is either one God or no gods since God is by nature all powerful.

Strange, but that by talking about God's "nature", you already assume it exists. Thus breaching your original statement again. As you said yourself.
And God as all poweful does not proclude the existence of a set of Gods.

But the actual point I make is rather different. I am saying that while you pick and choose your God (why Yahweh, for example, and not Anubis) to fit in the gaps of reality, and hence allow the God based framework to take any number of claims, you ignore that you are simultaneous denying the existence of all other Gods. And that by assuming that no-god gives only one set of consequences (which you assert is absurd), you have failed to give reality itself the flexibility (as we do not know the whole of reality, and never will) you grant your possibilities of gods. That, when forming your consequence idea, you must first determine what God can do that reality can't.

No easy job.

it is disheartening, to say the least, to hear responses which continue, without pause or reproach, to utter what has been uttered now for millenia by the hearts of man.

One might note rather cynically that it is you who have been giving quotes from (presumeably) ancient scriptures.

 

[FZ+]

To translate zero, even with God, you cannot escape self-governance (if such a thing exists) thanks simply to the act by which you choose a god.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
To translate zero, even with God, you cannot escape self-governance (if such a thing exists) thanks simply to the act by which you choose a god.

That's pretty much it...we are governed absolutely in a physical sense by things like gravity, but there is no apparent counterpart for behavioral governing, besides what we impose on ourselves.