is it valid to say "I dont believe in God"?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Aloysius']get someone to believe in existence, and they eventually have to believe in God. that's becuase God is the very DEFINITION of existence, YHWH.
[/quote]

Eh, that makes absolutely no sense to me. "we exist, therefore Jesus exists"?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Apr 24 2005, 01:21 AM'] [quote name='Aloysius']get someone to believe in existence, and they eventually have to believe in God. that's becuase God is the very DEFINITION of existence, YHWH.
[/quote]

Eh, that makes absolutely no sense to me. "we exist, therefore Jesus exists"? [/quote]
It takes a little more explaining than just that, but yes. You know the five ways, however reject them. So...

[Aloysius]

EXISTENCE exists.

now what we call GOD, you call EXISTENCE. You must really examine the nature of EXISTENCE to see if those properties we attribute to it are true.

It is universal, again a basic sentence everything exists.
It is non-temporal, according to the Law of Conservation of Matter, matter is never destroyed, we have all the matter now that existed at the time of the Big Bang. therefore time does not affect existence
It is unchangable, same idea. matter can change forms et cetera, but the fact that it exists cannot change.

I see existence as the basic thread upon which everything rests, and I see existence as the one truely eternal thing. here's why: I proved it's non-temporal, but I cannot necessarily prove that it is eternal; I simply believe it to be eternal because it makes the most sense to me. There is no observable nothingness, because existence abounds in everything we have ever known or observed and the concept of nothingness is incomprehensible in the laws of physics, science, and in the basic logic of the human mind it seems to not be able to well, exist. because if nothingness existed it would not be nothingness, it would be existence and nothing else. therefore, before all matter in the universe existed, when we assume there was some sort of nothingness, that nothingness still rested upon the thread of EXISTENCE. so as far as I'm concerned, existence always was and always will be.

IF the universe is infinite (that's a big IF, I more subscribe to the curved space idea that it is all eventually like a big sphere because of a bend in an unobservable dimension that makes it so that if you go strait enough out into space you'll come back to where you started) then that proves existence to be infinite. if not, existence being infinite would still make the most sense to me assuming it is universal and eternal

[Paphnutius]

What you are doing there is making Being into a being by saying it is the thread upon which everything rests. You make it sound as though Being is some thing that exists in the universe in all things, which is incorrect. Every being participates in Being, but Being is not a being in which everything rests. Being is not something that is in the universe, but something that all things do. Existence is not something that is actually in the universe, but Exist is something that all things do. It is a verb. I am a being, but I am Being. I am in existence, but I am Existing. I understand where you are trying to go with this, but you are blurring the distinction between existence, and Existing.

Also the law of conservation of Matter does affect existence. It affects things that are in existence. I do not think that you would say this cheesburger on my desk was always in existence. No, that would be foolish. However, the matter that it has composed of has always existed, not the cheeseburger. Notice the difference? Things in themselves do come in and go out of existence all the time. I have this book on my desk. The book exists. I burn the book. The book no longer exists. The book no longer shares in Existing as it did before. It no longer shares as a being in Being as it did before I destroyed it. The matter that has composed it is still there in a different form, but it exists differently from before. It is still Existing, still Being, but it is no longer the same existence or the same being as before. It dose change. I realize that you are getting to the root of matter. But as humans we recongize things as both existing and having essence. That is a hole in this arguement. What about the essence of something? The "whatness" of that thing? How is existence, Existing, and essence related? That will be the key to tweaking your theory. How does a being relate to Being and how does that affect its essence?

Also your first premise: that it is universal because everything exists. Well no, not everything exists. Everything that is existing exists. I ask you again...what happens to a dog's soul after it dies? Well it does not go to heaven because they are not immortal. It ceases to exist.

Edited April 24, 2005 by Paphnutius

[infinitelord1]

book is only a name designated to that specific piece of matter
In the burning book analogy.........it is the concept of "book" that is destroyed not the existence of matter.


What reason do we have to question Existence?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 11:51 AM'] book is only a name designated to that specific piece of matter
In the burning book analogy.........it is the concept of "book" that is destroyed not the existence of matter.
[/quote]
No you destroyed the existence of the book as it existed in itself. You did not destroy the concept of the book. That is foolish. The book may be gone but the concept still exists in my mind. The book ceased to exist as a book, not as a concept. I conceeded that you did not destroy the matter, but the book no longer exists. See? There is a difference between a being (the book and the matter that made it up) and Being (the existence of the book). The existence of the book was destroyed. That book no longer exists, there are only ashes. I am not saying that the matter was destroyed, but the book was. No arguing about that. The book ceased to exist. Period. You must answer the question about the relation between a being (something in existence) and Being (Existing) and how it relates to essence. The essence of the book....what happened to that?

Edited April 24, 2005 by Paphnutius

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 12:19 PM'] No you destroyed the existence of the book as it existed in itself. You did not destroy the concept of the book. That is foolish. The book may be gone but the concept still exists in my mind. The book ceased to exist as a book, not as a concept. I conceeded that you did not destroy the matter, but the book no longer exists. See? There is a difference between a being (the book and the matter that made it up) and Being (the existence of the book). The existence of the book was destroyed. That book no longer exists, there are only ashes. I am not saying that the matter was destroyed, but the book was. No arguing about that. The book ceased to exist. Period. You must answer the question about the relation between a being (something in existence) and Being (Existing) and how it relates to essence. The essence of the book....what happened to that? [/quote]
but you cant say something exists when it is only a concept. Before you took this thing called a "book" and burned it.......it was matter........afterwords it was also matter. The only difference is the name of this matter has changed not its existence (it is now called ash).

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 12:30 PM'] but you cant say something exists when it is only a concept. Before you took this thing called a "book" and burned it.......it was matter........afterwords it was also matter. The only difference is the name of this matter has changed not its existence (it is now called ash). [/quote]
But the book had an essence, that is what made it a book. The book as it existed in itself changed. Do you understand what is meant by "in itself" or "objectively?" I am not trying to be condescending but trying to help. The book as it existed as a book, had the essence of a book, a being that is a book that participated in Being, ceased to exist. It was not a concept, but corresponded to a reality. Otherwise your arguement could be use that you are nothing but a concept. Nor is God. If all existence is simply a concept applied to matter, then God is a concept. That is not true though, because we expreience the reality of a book, you, and God. The existence of the book ceased.

[infinitelord1]

look at the definition of a book. According to the definition, a book could only be a collection of papers bound together. This proves that what makes a book a book is not its content.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 01:05 PM'] According to the definition, a book could only be a collection of papers bound together. [/quote]
Yes, and when you burn that book, that collection of papers ceases to exist. Agreed? It ceases to have the existence and essence of a book by your own definition.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 01:06 PM'] Yes, and when you burn that book, that collection of papers ceases to exist. Agreed? It ceases to have the existence and essence of a book by your own definition. [/quote]
the important thing is though that the matter was not non-existent...........it was converted into another form.


You could say the same thing about paper before it was made too. In order for it to become paper it had to have a maker. In order for it to be destroyed it had to have a destroyer. It had to have a cause in order for there to be an effect.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 01:35 PM'] You could say the same thing about paper before it was made too. In order for it to become paper it had to have a maker. In order for it to be destroyed it had to have a destroyer. It had to have a cause in order for there to be an effect. [/quote]
That is a different arguement than from existence then. That is an arguement from change, aslo known as the second way of Aquinas.

I am just helping you become aware of what you are dealing with when you toss words like existence, existing, being, essence around.

[infinitelord1]

i can really see where this existence arguement would lead to. It ultimately would lead to atheists nor theists being able to prove anything. However, I still have more reason to believe in god than an atheist would not to believe in god (because of divine revelation). I think the best thing for this debate would be to focus on cause and effect.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 02:03 PM'] i can really see where this existence arguement would lead to. It ultimately would lead to atheists nor theists being able to prove anything. However, I still have more reason to believe in god than an atheist would not to believe in god (because of divine revelation). I think the best thing for this debate would be to focus on cause and effect. [/quote]
Very well then, that is not an arguement from existence, but of change.

And once again I point out that divine revelation presupposes God, it does not prove God.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 02:30 PM'] Very well then, that is not an arguement from existence, but of change.

And once again I point out that divine revelation presupposes God, it does not prove God. [/quote]
where as an atheist would have no "presupposes" that a god does not exist.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 04:12 PM'] where as an atheist would have no "presupposes" that a god does not exist. [/quote]
Are your proposing that they have a presup, or not?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 04:22 PM'] Are your proposing that they have a presup, or not? [/quote]
i say they dont have one

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 24 2005, 02:30 PM'] Very well then, that is not an arguement from existence, but of change.

And once again I point out that divine revelation presupposes God, it does not prove God. [/quote]
how is this an arguement from change rather than existence (cause and effect)? Or are you refering to me approaching the arguement differently now?

[track2004]

Wouldn't the statement "I don't believe in God" be somewhere in between "I don't believe in emus" and "I don't believe in the loch ness monster"?

On one hand (the emu hand) you've probably heard of an emu (maybe not), and there is a possibility your life has been affected by said emu. People who reject emus are either ignorant or weird... On the other hand you've peobably heard of the monster, but have very little reason to believe it.

So believers think of God along the lines of the emu. He's real and you're werid for not believing in Him. Athiests think of God as the monster and think you're weird for believing in Him.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 24 2005, 05:23 PM'] i say they dont have one [/quote]
Trying to form an arguement without presuppositions is always the best thing to do, however, it is nearly impossible. A Presupposition usually has to be defended and if it is a bad one may come up as an objection to your arguement. That is what makes the arguement from Divine Revelation so weak against athiests, it assumes there is a God. It tries to prove a God from an assumption one exists. See? You are arguing from God to God. That only works if they accept your presup first, which they do not.


[quote]how is this an arguement from change rather than existence (cause and effect)? Or are you refering to me approaching the arguement differently now? [/quote]

An arguement from existence stops with there is existence so there must be God. It says that since there is something rather than nothing there must be a God. It is a harder to defend arguement than of change.

Cause and effect is an arguement from change. A movement from a cause to an effect is a change. It is a movement from potentiality to actuality. It involves one thing being acted upon by a causer and thus becoming an effect. It involves the change in the thing acted upon by the causer. Does that make sense?

One argues from something rather than nothing, your argues from there is change in the universe.

Also do you understand when something is said to have X "in itself" or "objectively?" Those two things will help you out greatly.