Proof

[Draygomb]

I define God as the being who consciously created the universe. I use this definition because if God isn't conscious then God isn't aware of us and doesn't care what we do, so no amount of prayer and worship will ever accomplish anything and if God isn't the first cause then shouldn't we be worshipping his cause instead? Which brings us to the Premise that "If God Exists Then God Is Conscious And God Is The First Cause. Which can be restated as "If God Isn't The First Cause Or God Isn't Conscious Then God Doesn't Exist.

In order for God to be the first cause God must have the properties of the first cause. Nothing can cause The First Cause to change because then it wouldn't be The First Cause. So God must be Unchangeable.

In order for God to be conscious God must be aware of change. At the very least he must know the difference between Universe and No Universe. If God isn't aware of the change from no universe to universe then God isn't conscious. And awareness of change causes change in those who are aware of it. So Go must be Changeable.

So using the law of substitution we get:
"If God Isn't Unchangeable Or If God Isn't Changeable Then God Doesn't Exist.

Therefore God Doesn't Exist. 8)

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Although I agree with your conclusion, your logic is seriously flawed on so many different levels that I cringe to think of all the vultures now circling.

Sorry, but expect an onslaught and bone up on your Logic and Language 101 fast.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

[Theophage]

Hello Dray,

Like Koy, I agree with your conclusion, but not your argument. I have an atheological argument of my own on this board <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000048" target="_blank">here</a> regarding how the universe could not have had any cause, if you want to check it out.

Here are my comments on your argument (your text will be in bold):

I define God as the being who consciously created the universe.

I agree here as well, and I'm the theists would also agree.

Which brings us to the Premise that "If God Exists Then God Is Conscious And God Is The First Cause. Which can be restated as "If God Isn't The First Cause Or God Isn't Conscious Then God Doesn't Exist.

Going strong, my man...

In order for God to be the first cause God must have the properties of the first cause.


Hmmm... it would have been helpful if you had listed what those properties are here. You do go on to mention "unchangeable" (which I will comment on below), but a more comprehensive list with reasons why those properties are necessary would have helped.

Nothing can cause The First Cause to change because then it wouldn't be The First Cause. So God must be Unchangeable.

This simply didn't make any sense to me. While I agree that many theists claim that their God is unchanging (which below you agree is nonsensical if that God has thoughts, feelings, and actions), I don't see any reason why a First Cause would need to be unchangeable. Once the First Cause did it's job and caused the universe, it need not stay the same, nor need it even continue to exist. In fact, every cause I can think of changes after it causes whatever it does.

In order for God to be conscious God must be aware of change. At the very least he must know the difference between Universe and No Universe. If God isn't aware of the change from no universe to universe then God isn't conscious. And awareness of change causes change in those who are aware of it. So Go must be Changeable.


I think that "awareness" isn't the right avenue for this point. It would be a much stronger statement if you had said: "In order for God to be conscious, God must have changing mental states."

So using the law of substitution we get:
"If God Isn't Unchangeable Or If God Isn't Changeable Then God Doesn't Exist.

I would have likes to see a clearer use of substitution here. Use some x's and y's so we can get the picture clearer.

Anyway, welcome to the SecWeb Boards!

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

[Draygomb]

Could you point one out for me? Because I don't think you can.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'll assume that was addressed to me, Dray, yes? It's been a while since I went through remedial Logic and Language, so bear with me.

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
In order for God to be the first cause God must have the properties of the first cause. Nothing can cause The First Cause to change because then it wouldn't be The First Cause. So God must be Unchangeable.<hr></blockquote>

Theo already addressed this and I concur with his assessment. This syllogism is not valid and your conclusion non-sequitur. You're trying to force an issue based on a fallacy of definition; the same fallacy the cult members make.

Having the "properties" of the first cause (whatever those would be), for example, does not limit god to having just those properties, it can merely mean that he contains them.

Likewise with, "Nothing can cause The First Cause to change because then it wouldn't be The First Cause." If you're attempting an infinite regression, by all means, but you might as well argue solipsism for all the good it would do.

Classic christian cult theology simply proclaims that God is the creator--the first cause. It's not that "God" is "The First Cause," as if this were a second name or an event that can be personified/deified. To conflate the event with the cause of the event is certainly tempting, but it's the same invalid fallacy of definition the cult members make.

[quote]MORE: In order for God to be conscious God must be aware of change.<hr></blockquote>

Being "aware" of change and not being able to change are two very different states.

[quote]MORE: At the very least he must know the difference between Universe and No Universe. If God isn't aware of the change from no universe to universe then God isn't conscious. And awareness of change causes change in those who are aware of it. So Go must be Changeable.<hr></blockquote>

Non-sequitur. Once again, your syllogism is invalid. You have not established that "awareness" of change causes change, especially since, as CCCT alleges, such awareness was a pre-existing condition, nor have you establshed that God is unchangeable.

According to CCCT, god does "know" the difference between Universe and No Universe and knew of this difference prior to creating the Universe, thus it could very simply be argued that it was this "awareness of change" that resulted in the "First Cause" you're on about.

See? You've conflated "awareness of change" with "change," and that is not valid. I can be aware of change, but this does not mean that my awareness fundamentally, retroactively changes me as you are implying.

[quote]MORE: So using the law of substitution we get:
"If God Isn't Unchangeable Or If God Isn't Changeable Then God Doesn't Exist.

Therefore God Doesn't Exist.<hr></blockquote>

You have not justified using the law of substitution and arrived at yet another non-sequitur.

[Draygomb]

Koyaanisqatsi

What's wrong with defining god? did I not provide adequate reasoning for the definition I chose?

Then you try to say I'm limiting god to only the properties of the first cause. I'm with you, if something is an apple then it must have all the properties of an apple but this doesn't mean that it can't also be rotten.

No I'm not arguing infinite regression, I'm saying that no cause can come before the first cause.

Then you state [quote]Being "aware" of change and not being able to change are two very different states.<hr></blockquote>I agree In fact It's my whole point, that something can't be both changeable and unchangeable.

[quote] Non-sequitur. Once again, your syllogism is invalid. You have not established that "awareness" of change causes change, especially since, as CCCT alleges, such awareness was a pre-existing condition, <hr></blockquote>If one knows of both conditions then there is no change to be aware of.

[quote] nor have you establshed that God is unchangeable. <hr></blockquote>This section shows that god is changeable.

[quote] god does "know" the difference between Universe and No Universe and knew of this difference prior to creating the Universe <hr></blockquote>How could god have created something he already knew existed?

[quote] I can be aware of change, but this does not mean that my awareness fundamentally, retroactively changes me <hr></blockquote>Retroactively? Where did you get that idea? Awareness of change is a change in your preception. That's change causing change, not change retroactively causing change.

Got any real complaints?

[Draygomb]

Theophage

If I deny your second premise your whole arguement fails. You really need to prove that before you can use it as a premise. :)

[Theophage]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Theophage

If I deny your second premise your whole arguement fails. You really need to prove that before you can use it as a premise. :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

That is trivially true of any syllogistic argument. If you deny any of the premises, then the argument fails. The question is, on what grounds do you deny my second premis? If time is solely property of the universe, then it cannot exist outside of the universe by definition.

[quote]also posted by draygomb:
<strong>Could you point one out for me? Because I don't think you can.</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

Now there's an ego for you...

Anyway Dray, no comments on my critique of your argument?

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote]Originally posted by Dray: Koyaanisqatsi
What's wrong with defining god? did I not provide adequate reasoning for the definition I chose?<hr></blockquote>

No, you did not, as my post demonstrated.

[quote]MORE: Then you try to say I'm limiting god to only the properties of the first cause. I'm with you, if something is an apple then it must have all the properties of an apple but this doesn't mean that it can't also be rotten.<hr></blockquote>

Not quite, I'm pointing out the invalidity of your premise as written. It wasn't ancillary commentary or an opinion.

[quote]MORE: No I'm not arguing infinite regression, I'm saying that no cause can come before the first cause.<hr></blockquote>

I know. That's why I said, "If you're attempting an infinite regression, by all means, but you might as well argue solipsism for all the good it would do."

That was ancillary commentary.

You have a peculiar way of addressing someone's points. I suggest you do as I am doing and offer a point-by-point response, where you paste my entire post, quoting me then responding to the argument you've just separated by the quotes directly so that you can in fact respond to the salient points.

In that way you'll avoid this:

[quote]MORE: Then you state

KOY: Being "aware" of change and not being able to change are two very different states.<hr></blockquote>

I did not "then state" that. This is what I stated:

[quote]KOY: Likewise with, "Nothing can cause The First Cause to change because then it wouldn't be The First Cause." If you're attempting an infinite regression, by all means, but you might as well argue solipsism for all the good it would do.

Classic christian cult theology simply proclaims that God is the creator--the first cause. It's not that "God" is "The First Cause," as if this were a second name or an event that can be personified/deified. To conflate the event with the cause of the event is certainly tempting, but it's the same invalid fallacy of definition the cult members make.<hr></blockquote>

That's the argument you need to address.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

I said:

[quote]KOY: Being "aware" of change and not being able to change are two very different states.

YOUR RESPONSE: I agree In fact It's my whole point, that something can't be both changeable and unchangeable.<hr></blockquote>

You haven't established that being "aware" of change and not being able to change have anything to do with your claim, which was my whole point. I can be unchangeable and still be "aware" of change; the state of "unchangeable" only being applicable to me and the state of "awareness of change" only being applicable to existence around me.

[quote]KOY: Non sequitur. Once again, your syllogism is invalid. You have not established that "awareness" of change causes change, especially since, as CCCT alleges, such awareness was a pre-existing condition,

Dray: If one knows of both conditions then there is no change to be aware of.<hr></blockquote>

Then you've just disproved your own point. Awareness of change does not cause change.

[quote]KOY: nor have you established that God is unchangeable.

Dray: This section shows that god is changeable.

god does "know" the difference between Universe and No Universe and knew of this difference prior to creating the Universe <hr></blockquote>

What's wrong with you? I wrote that, not you and the full quote is:

[quote]KOY: According to CCCT (Classic Christian Cult Theology), god does "know" the difference between Universe and No Universe and knew of this difference prior to creating the Universe, thus it could very simply be argued that it was this "awareness of change" that resulted in the "First Cause" you're on about<hr></blockquote>

Please don't redact my counter-arguments in order to use them as proof for your invalid syllogisms, yes?

[quote]Dray: How could god have created something he already knew existed?<hr></blockquote>

Read the argument more carefully before responding, unless this question is unrelated to anything you've written prior since this question is unrelated to anything written prior.

Neither CCCT nor I claim that god created something he already knew existed. Although dangerous, I'll attempt to decipher the intent of your question to properly word it based on my post. I think you are trying to ask me how a being could know the difference between "Universe" and "No Universe" prior to creating "Universe," yes?

If so, then that's a very good question and one worth asking.

[quote]KOY: I can be aware of change, but this does not mean that my awareness fundamentally, retroactively changes me

Dray: Retroactively? Where did you get that idea?<hr></blockquote>

From your invalid premises. According to CCCT (or, more appropriately, Aquinas if I remember all this nonsense correctly), the "first cause" is an event personified (which is itself invalid, but we're not concerned with that here), and as such it has occurred. The fact that it has occurred means that it is unchangeable but not necessarily that god is unchangeable.

IMO, you have been trying to conflate the unchangeable aspect of the event with the claim of CCCT about the unchangeable state of their god, which is really the claim that their god's attributes are unchangeable, not that god is immutable.

It can be argued that god is capable of "awareness of change" in humans, for example, through free will.

I don't agree with any of it, of course, but it can be argued based on what you've presented and since this is about the structure of your argument and not necessarily what you're arguing, that's why I bring it up.

[quote]Dray: Awareness of change is a change in your preception.<hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily. You're liberally applying the term "change" when you should not be. "Awareness of change" can be nothing more than a chronicling of events from one state of existence to another state of existence. How would this "chronicling" fundamentally change you?

You have not established that being aware of a caterpillar's ability to change into a butterfly, for example, or watching a caterpillar change into a butterfly fundamentally changes your own attributes, which is what you'd have to establish in order to make your syllogism valid.

[quote]MORE: That's change causing change<hr></blockquote>

No, it is not. That's "change" being observed.

[quote]MORE: not change retroactively causing change.<hr></blockquote>

Which is what you'd have to establish, since you're arguing the "first cause" as being unchangeable and therefore "god" as being unchangeable.

[quote]Dray: Got any real complaints?<hr></blockquote>

Far more than you have real answers, apparently.

Look, I'm on your side. I'm atheist, but your "proof" is not valid as it is written.

[Draygomb]

Theophage

Time is the measure of change. I don't see how you can say that only our universe is capable of change when we don't know what might be beyond it.

Your arguement basically boils down to the assertion that god doesn't exist because the universe is all there is.

[quote]Hmmm... it would have been helpful if you had listed what those properties are here. You do go on to mention "unchangeable" (which I will comment on below), but a more comprehensive list with reasons why those properties are necessary would have helped.<hr></blockquote>I only list one property because that is all I need for my proof.

[quote]Once the First Cause did it's job and caused the universe, it need not stay the same, nor need it even continue to exist. In fact, every cause I can think of changes after it causes whatever it does.<hr></blockquote>
If One goes back in time and changes history all of the time after that moment changes as well. So if the first cause changes so does everything else.
How about if god is changeable then god is caught in time and so must have his own first cause.

But what reason would you give for [quote] God must have changing mental states <hr></blockquote> :)

[Draygomb]

Koy

Let's start out slow

If god is not conscious then the first cause is just some magic rock kicking out universes.
If god isn't the first cause then what seperates him from any other conscious being.
Thus my definition of god as the conscious creator.

Or

P1 - God is Conscious
P2 - God is The First Cause
C1 - God is Conscious and The First Cause

Any problems yet?

[Theophage]

Quoted material by Draygomb will be in bold:

Time is the measure of change. I don't see how you can say that only our universe is capable of change when we don't know what might be beyond it.

Time is more than a mere measure of change, it is a physical dimension. See Einstein's theory of Special Relativity for a further explanation.

Since it is also a physical dimension of the universe, it would not exist outside of the universe. In fact, I would argue that "outside the universe" is meaningless like "north of the North Pole".

Your arguement basically boils down to the assertion that god doesn't exist because the universe is all there is.


Not at all, though that is another argument that I'd consider valid. My argument is about causality; it establishes that the universe cannot have a cause. If it cannot have a cause, then it certainly cannot have a God who caused it. Now if the theists want to say that their God exists, but did not cause the universe, my argument fails to disprove such a God.

If One goes back in time and changes history all of the time after that moment changes as well.

This does not logically follow from my comment that the First Cause need not stay unchanged. If the First Caused changed in some way, how is that logcially equivalent to something going "back in time"?

Here is an example of what I mean: I am sitting here causing letters to appear on my screen. I continue to exist, even though I am now past the point in time when I caused a certain letter to appear. I have changed since, buy the changes I have undergone don't do anything to the letters that are already there.

Similarily, once the First Cause did its job and caused the universe, it would not need to stay the same afterward. The universe would already be there, and any further changes in the First Cause would not necessarily change what it has done previously. Does that help?

But what reason would you give for God must have changing mental states[?]

I dunno, I just thought such a proposition seemed more direct and forceful. I'd worry about the rest of your argument first.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

[Draygomb]

Theo

If I'm a bodyless soul and I change my mind does that change indicate the passage of time?

How about if god is changeable then god is caught in time and so must have his own first cause and that which is caused isn't the first cause. :)

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
Koy
Let's start out slow<hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes: All right...

[quote]MORE: If god is not conscious then the first cause is just some magic rock kicking out universes.<hr></blockquote>

Assuming the god of the OT exists and there is a "first cause" to the Universe, yeah...

[quote]MORE: If god isn't the first cause then what seperates him from any other conscious being.<hr></blockquote>

The question you are asking is not a minor premise and can readily be answered by CCCT (i.e., "Omniscience separates god from any other being," "Omnipotence separates god from any other being," etc.)

[quote]MORE: Thus my definition of god as the conscious creator.<hr></blockquote>

Non-sequitur. You have not derived this definition, you have merely defined god as "The Conscious Creator." Nothing else. What you wrote was not a valid syllogism for you to derive such a definition.

Do you understand what that means? These are structural problems with your "proof" that renders it invalid as it is written. Do you understand what that means?

Go slowly.

[quote]MORE: Or

P1 - God is Conscious
P2 - God is The First Cause
C1 - God is Conscious and The First Cause

Any problems yet?<hr></blockquote>

Yes, the same ones I've posted prior and you have not addressed.

Your capitalization of "The First Cause" implies an invalid conflation of the event of creation and the cause of the event of creation. A being is not an event and an event cannot be defined as a being; an event is caused and CCCT states that the cause of the event is their god, hence god is the first cause of creation (conveniently truncated to the phrase "the first cause" for reference, perhaps) but god is not "The First Cause," in the sense you're later implying, capisca?

At best, your syllogism, therefore, should read thus:

[quote]P1: God is conscious.
P2: God is the first cause of all creation.
Therefore,
C1: God is conscious and the first cause of all creation.<hr></blockquote>

Which is little more than a tautology, but at least it's more accurate to your intent of meaning, so start with C1 next and maybe we can trudge through this mess.

[Draygomb]

Koy [quote]Assuming the god of the OT<hr></blockquote>Wait a minute why just the OT god? If we're going to worship a god shouldn't it be the first god, The one who created everything else (or atleast created those who created...)?

[quote]You have not derived this definition, you have merely defined god<hr></blockquote>That's right. :)

[quote]These are structural problems with your "proof"<hr></blockquote>The structural problems are all in your head. This proof is written informally but even when I put it into a formal structure you didn't think it was valid because I didn't use the word "therefore" as if that is some kind of logical sin.

The big question: Is this a valid definition: God is conscious and the first causeR

:cool:

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Dray, what the hell are you talking about? It was invalid because of the premises, not because I included the word "therefore" in italics!

You can't possibly be that dense. Your syllogism is invalid. Got it?

As for the "first god," I have no idea what that means, since there are no such things as "gods" of any kind. I had (aparently incorrectly) assumed that you were positing the existence of "God" (in the biblical sense), not just "a god concept," for the sake of argument. My apologies.

So, now, all we have is you just arbitrarily defining your god concept as "conscious."

That's it. Your proof has no bearing on this arbitrary definition so other than to just declare, "I randomly define the alleged anthropomorphic creator of the Universe most commonly referred to in the Judeo/Christian Bible as 'God' to be: consciousness," what is your point?

Before answering that, remember that your syllogism is invalid as written and serves no further purpose, so please do not simply repeat it as if to pretend that I am just not following your logic. I do and have demonstrated conclusively that it is invalid as written based on the premises, not because you didn't include the word "therefore." When I stated the structure was the issue, I didn't mean the formatting.

[Draygomb]

Koy [quote]It was invalid because of the premises<hr></blockquote>So are you denying that god is conscious or that god is The reason for the first action commonly known as the first cause? :rolleyes:

[Ted Hoffman]

Dray
[quote]Wait a minute why just the OT god? If we're going to worship a god shouldn't it be the first god, The one who created everything else (or atleast created those who created...)?<hr></blockquote>

The First cause doesnt have to be one. The God doesnt have to be one. They could have been many Gods.
There is a need to establish why it had to be one God and not many Gods.
Koy
[quote]
Being "aware" of change and not being able to change are two very different states.<hr></blockquote>
Knowledge is part of a conscious being. If the knowledge/ data/ facts that a being holds change, then part of the being has changed. Ergo the being has changed: something has been registered:

If you sit as the Gods probably did before they went into the act of creating the universe, then a stone (maybe because of wind, rain etc) falls from atop a larger stone, you will know that the stone has dropped. If you were incapable of noticing the stone fall ("un-aware"), you would probably reach for it later, but you observed and will not do the same thing someone who lacked awareness of the falling.
Therefore you would act in accordance with what you know.
If your knowledge remained the same, you'd act in the same mechanistic way. But your knowledge changes (because reality is not static) and therefore you TOO change. You change your ways, you change your plans. YOU CHANGE. Because you know different.
Therefore you have changed.
I do not believe its possible to be aware and not be dynamic.

I hope I have demonstrated that being aware of change goes together with being able to change, as far as Intelligent beings are concerned. Intelligent beings are capable of learning.

[Draygomb]

jaliet

If there were many gods that all started at the same time then what caused all of them? That would mean there could be an infinite number of gods how could any of them be special enough to worship?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

For f*ck's sake. Cut and paste my post and address every single line directly as I have yours, Dray. I have no intention of repeating myself three times now.

Jaliet, you're doing the same thing Dray is doing with the word "change." The Christian cult does not claim that their god is immutable; the claim is that their god's fundamental attributes are unchangeable, meaning that he/she/it is steadfast; without requirement of change, not that he/she/it is incapable of watching a rock fall from a height or experience...

You know what, f*ck it. I'm atheist. If you want to take this nonsense up with the cult members here, be my guest. I was just pointing out to Dray that his logic was faulty and his syllogisms invalid, because I mistakenly thought he was trying to disprove the existence of a god so I thought I'd help him out to correctly structure his "proof," but now it seems as if Dray actually thinks that magical fairy god kings factually exist.

[Ted Hoffman]

my, my, my aren't we touchy

[Ted Hoffman]

Dray
[quote]
If there were many gods that all started at the same time then what caused all of them?
<hr></blockquote>
This question cuts both ways.
Are you implying that a single God doesnt need to be caused?
[quote]
That would mean there could be an infinite number of gods how could any of them be special enough to worship?<hr></blockquote>
How does the need to worhip one of them have any relevance to their coming to existence? The fact that people worship one doesn't make it true that there is indeed only one.

[Draygomb]

Jaliet

It just seems too improbable that so many superior beings should pop into existence all at the same time and uncaused.

Koy

Wrong again, I'm a die hard Atheist. :)

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote]Originally posted by jaliet:
<strong>my, my, my aren't we touchy</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yes, "we" are. Three detailed deconstructions of Dray's invalid syllogisms and precisely why his proof is poorly conceived and his only counter argument in response in all three is, in essence, "Nu-unh! Is not!"

That tends to get on my nerves, yes.

[Datheron]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Jaliet

It just seems too improbable that so many superior beings should pop into existence all at the same time and uncaused.

Koy

Wrong again, I'm a die hard Atheist. :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Um....it is much more improbable that any God or any sentient being, even regardless of power, should pop into existence. Of course, when we're dealing with Mr. Omnipotent, all probability goes out the window.

[Ted Hoffman]

[quote]Originally posted by Datheron:
<strong>

Um....it is much more improbable that any God or any sentient being, even regardless of power, should pop into existence. Of course, when we're dealing with Mr. Omnipotent, all probability goes out the window.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with Datheron. Maybe its a chicken and egg dilemma. Its improbable that out of one thing many things came out. Its more probable that out of very simple/insignificant things, something complex came out or complex things came out.

For example its said life evolved from single-celled organisms (note organisms, nor organism).
How would it sound if I stated that life evolved from a single celled organism.

In any case, since we are atheists and we are discussing the God concept, Monotheism is a recent concept. ALL ancient religions were polytheistic.

That could mean something. I dont know, but can't just be dismissed without good reason.

In any case complex compounds are made up of simple compounds, we move from simple to complex (logically), and not the other way round.

If God is as complex as he is, he must have had humble beginnings too.

And if he did (which we dont know) why the hell should we worship him.

[Draygomb]

Koy

It's a simple question, try giving a simple answer.

Which definition do you have a problem with:
God is Conscious Or
God is the first cause?

[Draygomb]

Jaliet [quote]How would it sound if I stated that life evolved from a single celled organism.
<hr></blockquote>Correct.

[Ted Hoffman]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Koy

It's a simple question, try giving a simple answer.

Which definition do you have a problem with:
God is Conscious Or
God is the first cause?</strong><hr></blockquote>
QUOTE]Originally posted by Draygomb:
[QB]Koy

Is an inexistent being conscious?
Is an inexistent being the first cause?

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>I define God as the being who consciously created the universe. I use this definition because if God isn't conscious then God isn't aware of us and doesn't care what we do, so no amount of prayer and worship will ever accomplish anything and if God isn't the first cause then shouldn't we be worshipping his cause instead? Which brings us to the Premise that "If God Exists Then God Is Conscious And God Is The First Cause. Which can be restated as "If God Isn't The First Cause Or God Isn't Conscious Then God Doesn't Exist.

In order for God to be the first cause God must have the properties of the first cause. Nothing can cause The First Cause to change because then it wouldn't be The First Cause. So God must be Unchangeable.

In order for God to be conscious God must be aware of change. At the very least he must know the difference between Universe and No Universe. If God isn't aware of the change from no universe to universe then God isn't conscious. And awareness of change causes change in those who are aware of it. So Go must be Changeable.

So using the law of substitution we get:
"If God Isn't Unchangeable Or If God Isn't Changeable Then God Doesn't Exist.

Therefore God Doesn't Exist. 8)</strong><hr></blockquote>

God is the First cause and must be the first cause or there could be no second cause. If there is no second cause there could be no third cause and in the end you nor I could exist.

If God is the first cause he is also exhausted by the first cause and your argument seems to focus on the second the third cause. God is the essence of creation and as such is God the cause of all that which is created.

The second cause is Lord God and there are billions of those. The third cause is like god and they equal in number with Lord God.

If there are billions of second and third causes would this not indicate that the first cause exist, does not change and is intelligent?

Therefore God exists.

Amos

[Draygomb]

Amos [quote]If there are billions of second and third causes would this not indicate that the first cause exist, does not change and is intelligent?<hr></blockquote>No, a second cause only indicates an unchangeable first cause it does not indicate intelligence. Nothing which is unchangeable can be intelligent because intelligence requires thoughts to change.

[Vorkosigan]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Amos No, a second cause only indicates an unchangeable first cause it does not indicate intelligence. Nothing which is unchangeable can be intelligent because intelligence requires thoughts to change.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Draygomb, this is fabulously naive. "Intelligence" is only one of the many functions of the mind. What changes the mind is input, not thoughts (these are responses to input in one form or another). Input can take many forms, from sensory stimuli to formal informational input from other thinking beings. Most of the input the human mind recieves is processed far below any "thinking" level for convenience, efficiency and accuracy, but it nevertheless affects the mind.

Michael

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Amos No, a second cause only indicates an unchangeable first cause it does not indicate intelligence. Nothing which is unchangeable can be intelligent because intelligence requires thoughts to change.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you suggest that the second cause is where intelligence begins. I would go along with this and fits my descritpion of God as Love, Lord God as Life, and like god (humans in this case) in which Love is made flesh through Lord God as second cause. Lord God is divided between man and woman and in the third cause human is added to make the third cause divided between God, Lord God (man and woman) and human.

[Draygomb]

Turtonm [quote]Draygomb, this is fabulously naive. "Intelligence" is only one of the many functions of the mind. What changes the mind is input, not thoughts (these are responses to input in one form or another). Input can take many forms, from sensory stimuli to formal informational input from other thinking beings. Most of the input the human mind recieves is processed far below any "thinking" level for convenience, efficiency and accuracy, but it nevertheless affects the mind.
<hr></blockquote>First you call my position "fabulously naive" then you agree with it saying "it nevertheless affects the mind" which is the same as saying it changes the mind. Maybe you should make up your mind.

[Draygomb]

Amos

So you agree that the first cause, that which created everything else, was without intelligence?

[Vorkosigan]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Turtonm First you call my position "fabulously naive" then you agree with it saying "it nevertheless affects the mind" which is the same as saying it changes the mind. Maybe you should make up your mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dray, you wrote:
Amos No, a second cause only indicates an unchangeable first cause it does not indicate intelligence. Nothing which is unchangeable can be intelligent because intelligence requires thoughts to change.

I specifically denied your last sentence by pointing out that changes in the mind -- which are not the same as changes in "intelligence" -- take place when the mind receives new input. The mind also changes when housecleaning and other routine tasks take place.

Have you done any reading in the cognitive or psychological sciences? Like, say, Chomsky, Pinker, Fodor, Churchland, Tooby, Cosimides, Dennett, Buss.....to name only a mere and random tithe. Gurdur or I would be happy to give you a list.

Michael

[Draygomb]

Turtonm [quote]I specifically denied your last sentence by pointing out that changes in the mind -- which are not the same as changes in "intelligence" -- take place when the mind receives new input. The mind also changes when housecleaning and other routine tasks take place.<hr></blockquote>I didn't say intelligence changes. But intelligence requires thought and thought requires change. Therefore without change there is no thought and without thought there is no intelligence. :)

And yeah, I had psychology in college. :rolleyes:

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Amos

So you agree that the first cause, that which created everything else, was without intelligence?</strong><hr></blockquote>

But the first cause did not create everything else but is continually procreated by the second and third cause. The first cause created the essense of intelligence and is without intelligence until it is made known by the second and third.

If we call the first cause intelligence we must immediatly ask: in regard to what? So the second and third cause become the manifestation of intelligence.

This is easier to see with the three omni's and also with infinity. Infinite means nothing in itself until the second cause becomes the numerator. The third cause becomes the denominator which in this case is the procreator of the infinite. This now means that as long as intelligence exists infinity is maintained.

Note, I see the first cause as presence instead of history.

Amos

[Draygomb]

Amos [quote]I see the first cause as presence instead of history<hr></blockquote> :confused: Explain

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Koy

It's a simple question, try giving a simple answer.

Which definition do you have a problem with:
God is Conscious Or
God is the first cause?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Respond point-by-point to my previous deconstruction or concede you are not capable of doing so.

[Ted Hoffman]

earlier
Jaliet : How would it sound if I stated that life evolved from a single celled organism.
Draygomb Correct.
Jaliet Incorrect.What would be correct would be if I stated that life evolved from single celled organisms

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

[Ted Hoffman]

Earlier said by Michael
[quote] "Intelligence" is only one of the many functions of the mind. What changes the mind is input, not thoughts (these are responses to input in one form or another). Input can take many forms, from sensory stimuli to formal informational input from other thinking beings. <hr></blockquote>
The input CANNOT change the mind unless its an intelligent MIND. So this argument fails. For example, if I sneezed, then withdrew a gun and shot you in the knee today, then I sneeze and shoot your other knee a month later, next time I sneeze then withdraw a gun, you should act to prevent me shooting you. If you don't, then you cannot reasonably be classified as intelligent if you are at that time capable of flight / self-defense and are aware of the impending danger(unless you enjoy being shot). Intelligence will require the input to be processed, and the action of the intelligent being should be based on the processed information, under related circumstances.
[quote]Most of the input the human mind recieves is processed far below any "thinking" level for convenience, efficiency and accuracy, but it nevertheless affects the mind.<hr></blockquote>
Even if that was so, the mind is still affected and it changes and therefore, the being changes sir.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

[Ted Hoffman]

earlier said by Michael to DC

Michael I specifically denied your last sentence by pointing out that changes in the mind -- which are not the same as changes in "intelligence" -- take place when the mind receives new input. The mind also changes when housecleaning and other routine tasks take place.

jaliet Its incorrect and misleading to compare the usual housecleaning routines (which btw never take place in the mind, but take place in the brain) with actual acquisition of knowledge. When the mind changes, behaviour changes, personality changes and action changes. So the being changes. The routine housecleaning activities do not affect personality or action but basically keep the mind "refreshed" or you could say well oiled.

I notice you are implying that Intelligence is not changed by inputs. I believe you are confusing IQ with intelligence. I define intelligence as the The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. This capacity increases with more knowledge in related fields. For example I would learn programming in a new language faster than someone who has never done any programming, if me and that person were of the same IQ.

So I assert that the IQ doesnt change (because its genetic) but the intelligence changes as the mind changes.

[Draygomb]

Jaliet [quote]life evolved from single celled organisms<hr></blockquote>Only after they evolved from a single celled organism. :)

[Draygomb]

Koy [quote]Respond point-by-point to my previous deconstruction or concede you are not capable of doing so<hr></blockquote>I'm incapable of responding to the incomprehensible rubbish you posted, which is why I suggested we take things slow, but even that has proven to much for you. :( Or shall we try again, slower this time? ;)

If god exists, is god conscious? :)

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Draygomb ]</p>

[HelenM]

[quote]Originally posted by jaliet:
<strong>If God is as complex as he is, he must have had humble beginnings too.

And if he did (which we dont know) why the hell should we worship him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) Having had humble beginnings doesn't necessarily make one not worthy to be worshiped.

2) To even talk about something present coming from something past is to assume time is unidirectional and linear - but, who knows?

love
Helen

[Draygomb]

If time is multidimensional then it can easily loop around to start its self which eliminates the first cause which is god.

If time doesn't really exist then there is no first cause which is god.

If time is unidimensional then there is a first cause but it couldn't be conscious because it would be unchangeable.

[HelenM]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>If time is multidimensional then it can easily loop around to start its self which eliminates the first cause which is god.

If time doesn't really exist then there is no first cause which is god.

If time is unidimensional then there is a first cause but it couldn't be conscious because it would be unchangeable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But whether God exists isn't a matter of whether God is needed :)

love
Helen

[Draygomb]

Helen

:confused:How can there be a Creator if there is no point of creation? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[HelenM]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Helen

:confused: How can there be a Creator if there is no point of creation? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Is that what this thread is about? LOL I didn't know that. :D

That's rather subjective, whether there is a 'point' of Creation. We might never agree on that :)

love
Helen

[Draygomb]

Helen

Even if we assume a first cause it still rules out a conscious creator.

[HelenM]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Helen

Even if we assume a first cause it still rules out a conscious creator.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I must have missed the 'proof' of this :p . Was it at the beginning of this thread?

[Draygomb]

Helen

Yes, It's really quite simple.

If god is the first cause then god can't change because anything which exists without time is unchangeable.

If god is conscious then god must be able to change because consciousness requires thoughts to change.

God can't be both changeable and unchangeable so god doesn't exist.

[theophilus]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Helen

Yes, It's really quite simple.

If god is the first cause then god can't change because anything which exists without time is unchangeable.

If god is conscious then god must be able to change because consciousness requires thoughts to change.

God can't be both changeable and unchangeable so god doesn't exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a perfect case of the danger of using words imprecisely.
God is "conscious" in the sense that he is perfectly aware of his own existence. He is not "conscious" in the sense that he has a "stream of consciousness," which implies the passing of time.
Further, God's "thoughts" are not the processing of information, which also implies the passage of time, but are the expression of his eternal, perfect and absolute knowledge.
As I indicated above, the correct word is not "consciously," but purposefully, i.e., on purpose, with purpose.
Finally, this is a bogus argument because of
Fallacy of identity;
Man is created in God's image does not mean God is just like man.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

[theophilus]

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
<strong>

I must have missed the 'proof' of this :p . Was it at the beginning of this thread?</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is some verbal confusion here. For "consciously," read purposfully.

[theophilus]

[quote]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>Although I agree with your conclusion, your logic is seriously flawed on so many different levels that I cringe to think of all the vultures now circling.

Sorry, but expect an onslaught and bone up on your Logic and Language 101 fast.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is curious (and instructive). "I agree with your conclusion, but your logic is faulty."
Aren't "conclusions" supposed to follow from valid arguments?
This is a case of starting with a conclusion and trying to find arguments to support it. It's just that, in this case, the arguments are bad. So, don't reject the conclusion, just look for better arguments.
Hmmmmmm.

[Datheron]

Theophilus,

[quote]<strong>

This is curious (and instructive). "I agree with your conclusion, but your logic is faulty."
Aren't "conclusions" supposed to follow from valid arguments?
This is a case of starting with a conclusion and trying to find arguments to support it. It's just that, in this case, the arguments are bad. So, don't reject the conclusion, just look for better arguments.
Hmmmmmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hope you're not serious about the above charge.

Agreeing to the conclusion means precisely that - the conclusion is similar or the same via a series of arguments and logical exercises. There is, however, no implication that the conclusion had to be reached in the same manner; i.e. that the first (bad) argument had to be abandoned for a better argument.

Of course, one can easily go the other way around.


I have the flu.
If I have the flu, then God exists.
Hence, God exists.


And here I rule that if you conclude that God exists, you must have came with the conclusion first, and then sought better arguments.

Bad argument? Certainly. A strawman if I try to impose this upon your conclusion, which has nothing to do with that reasoning? Definitely. Hence, an invalid argument based on a faulty observation? Hm....I'll let you answer that one.

[Ted Hoffman]

Helen
[quote]1) Having had humble beginnings doesn't necessarily make one not worthy to be worshiped.<hr></blockquote>
No it doesn't. But it definitely doesn't make one worthy of worship. Because we all have "humble" beginnings.
[quote]2) To even talk about something present coming from something past is to assume time is unidirectional and linear - but, who knows?<hr></blockquote>
God is supposed to know. If he does, he is withholding info from people who need it. Maybe he is protecting himself. Those who know the least obey the best. (this is a beautiful amphiboly)
DrayGomb
[quote]
If time doesn't really exist then there is no first cause which is god.<hr></blockquote>
I have a sneaking suspicion that time does not exist. For example if the earth had three suns illuminating it (no nights, only endless days), and if the earth was not rotating, what would we use to "measure" time? Wouldn't we have an illusion of no passage of time? I think time is just like a kilogram - something we have created to measure something else.
Theophilus
[quote]God is "conscious" in the sense that he is perfectly aware of his own existence. He is not "conscious" in the sense that he has a "stream of consciousness," which implies the passing of time..<hr></blockquote>
This simply means that God is aware only of his own existence, not the existence of the universe (which changes), and not the existence of any of us. Consciousness involves awareness of the surrounding too. Its not yet been found possible that one can be aware of ones own existence while at the same time, not conscious of the surrounding, UNLESS God lives without a surrounding. I believe that the universe must beone item in Gods surrounding. The God of the Bible changed his mind many times in the bible. Which is this God that is unchangeable?
. [quote]Further, God's "thoughts" are not the processing of information, which also implies the passage of time, but are the expression of his eternal, perfect and absolute knowledge.<hr></blockquote>
Which God? The biblical God or the God in your mind? Which one are you talking about?

I think the weaknesses in these discussions is that its not set from the first post which God we should be talking about.

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Amos :confused: Explain</strong><hr></blockquote>

According to me, the Genesis of our mythology does not deal with the origen of the planets in the universe nor does it deal with the origen of life on the planets. It deals with the origen of life within each one of us, how it was created, conceived and co-created by individual (personal) intelligence to become the leading edge of evolution.

The first cause (God) is needed for life to be created prior to our conception. This life is to find form (be conceived) in males first between the conscious and subconscious mind (only the sperm has independant life), and be later be transported into the ovary where penetration into the ovum must reproduce the first cause prior to conception takes place there.

My first cause argument would help explain why fertility clinics are needed because not just sexual relations are needed to reproduce human life.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Theo, we already know you need to bone up on your Logic and Language 101. :D

[Draygomb]

Theophilus

If god is unchangeable then either god has always been aware of the universe or will never be aware of the universe.

If god has always been aware of the universe then the universe has always existed and wasn't created therefore god doesn't exist.

If god isn't aware of the universe then god is unaware or unconscious with regard to us. God can never communicate with us or know of us therefore god is not a conscious being therefore god doesn't exist.

[Draygomb]

Jaliet

We are talking about the god that would exist if god existed. :D

God as the conscious creator :)

[Draygomb]

Amos

No wonder you weren't making any sense, while everyone else understands that the first cause is the origin of the universe, you're talking about the beginning of each individual life.

[Ted Hoffman]

[quote]Originally posted by Draygomb:
<strong>Jaliet

We are talking about the god that would exist if god existed. :D

God as the conscious creator :) </strong><hr></blockquote>
And its been explained why he has to be conscious? and not just a force like magnetic force?

[Draygomb]

Jaliet

Why pray to a power that can't recieve prayer?
Why beg the forgiveness of a power that can't forgive?
Why obey the laws of a being that can't enforce them?

If the first cause is not conscious why call it god?

[Draygomb]

Zero Angel

But what were his objections to my logic?

[Diggler St.]

Okay, I am not implying that anyone knows everything or anything like that. The statement, as I said, was generic and I heard and it sounded reasonable, sorry if I offended anyone.

Now that I got that out,

Draygomb:

I see what you are saying about logic and square circles. However, some logic, to me doesn't necessarily satisfy the non-existence of a God. Now I don't believe in God, remember that, but my reasoning goes farther than simple logic such as square circles and I'll show you why, at least how I see it, simple logic did not convince me.

When something is illogical, or logically paradoxical, or an antimony meaning this something is impossible.

Take this statement as true, “God can do anything”. Even though the suggested question is: what is it God can’t do (like your square circles), let’s ask: what is there that can be done

If my coffee table did not exist, it had never existed. Now would this limit “God” if he/she/it was not aware my coffee table existed? Probably not, considering, for he/she/it to be unaware of the existence of objects that do not, have not, and will not exist says nothing of he/she/it for there was nothing for “God” to know.

Can he/she/it create square circles? Or can he create military intelligence (joke...hee hee)? Well in relation to the coffee table, we talk of something that never existed. To say, “square circle” is to say nothing at all. Basically, words slammed together with no meaning in and of itself; these are words that add up to nothing. Which, in essence, there is nothing for “God” to be unable to create, not limiting “God”. Most theists (and some philosophers), at least the one’s I know, claim “God” cannot do the logically impossible. Or, even better, the logically impossible is not there to be done

[John Page]

If a god (or gods) were the first cause, who or what caused it (or them)?

[Draygomb]

By definition The First Cause has no cause.

[Draygomb]

Diggler

The significance of square circles is that they prove that things that have selfcontradicting definitions don't exist.

Therefore, Any god, that has a definition that is selfcontradicting, doesn't exist.

Now to me there are 2 things a god must be in order to be worthy of worship and they are The First Cause and Conscious. But since those 2 things are mutually exclusive there are no definitions of god that I feel would be worthy of worship.

[Draygomb]

:)

[Spiderman&Co.]

Diggler

The significance of square circles is that they prove that things that have selfcontradicting definitions don't exist.

Therefore, Any god, that has a definition that is selfcontradicting, doesn't exist.

Now to me there are 2 things a god must be in order to be worthy of worship and they are The First Cause and Conscious. But since those 2 things are mutually exclusive there are no definitions of god that I feel would be worthy of worship.

Your argument turns on how you conceive consciousness. I would be curious to see if you respond to Theophilus in Post #54. As he noted, God's "consciousness" is not quite in the same line as you and I. Hence, if we say this then your argument is shot, because, as you noted above, it requires that "consciousness" and "first cause" are two mutually exclusive terms.

[skepticalbip]

A really strange semantic argument. Stranger still is that no one challenged the definition of “God� as the being who consciously created the universe.

How would this thread evolve it we changed the definition from an anthropomorphic being to something closer to that of deists like Einstein. In this case prayer is a waste of effort because God does not answer prayers. There is no worry about breaking God’s laws because God’s laws can not be violated… God’s laws are the laws of physics.

[Draygomb]

Your argument turns on how you conceive consciousness. I would be curious to see if you respond to Theophilus in Post #54. As he noted, God's "consciousness" is not quite in the same line as you and I. Hence, if we say this then your argument is shot, because, as you noted above, it requires that "consciousness" and "first cause" are two mutually exclusive terms.

In order for God to consciously create the universe he must first decide to create the universe. Decision Making is an action that requires a change in one's consciousness, One must go from a moment of indecision to a moment where one is decided. This is an action which requires time. Which isn't available to the first cause.

Decision making is one of the most basic forms of consciousness.

[Draygomb]

A really strange semantic argument. Stranger still is that no one challenged the definition of “God� as the being who consciously created the universe.

How would this thread evolve it we changed the definition from an anthropomorphic being to something closer to that of deists like Einstein. In this case prayer is a waste of effort because God does not answer prayers. There is no worry about breaking God’s laws because God’s laws can not be violated… God’s laws are the laws of physics.
To me there are 2 types of deists:
Atheists who wish to avoid the label of Atheist.
Theists who have had their concept of God shattered and are clinging to the remnants of religion.

So I see no reason to try and disprove the Deist "God" because it is nothing more than the universe with an impressive title.

[Spiderman&Co.]

In order for God to consciously create the universe he must first decide to create the universe. Decision Making is an action that requires a change in one's consciousness, One must go from a moment of indecision to a moment where one is decided. This is an action which requires time. Which isn't available to the first cause.

Decision making is one of the most basic forms of consciousness.

Following in the line of Skepticalbip from a few posts back....

The Christian conception of God is not that there was a "moment" when God "decided" to create. Hence, there was no "change" in God.

As was stated in previous posts, your conception of God's consciousness is far oversimplified. You equate God's consciousness with the consciousness of a human being. Though they are similar, they are not identical.

[Draygomb]

The Christian conception of God is not that there was a "moment" when God "decided" to create. Hence, there was no "change" in God.
If God's consciousness doesn't change and God knows that the universe exists then god has always known that the universe exists. If God has always known that the universe exists then the universe has always existed and wasn't created. If the universe wasn't created then God doesn't exist.

[skepticalbip]

Draygomb,
Nice try... If you can't argue against an assertion, demean it.

Although you enjoy arguing against a simplistic idea, a more reasonable and thoughtful description of the nature of God seems to intimidate you. It is simple to point out the fallacy of an anthropomorphic god. Deism is a little more difficult.

[Draygomb]

Although you enjoy arguing against a simplistic idea, a more reasonable and thoughtful description of the nature of God seems to intimidate you.Actually the reason I chose the definition conscious creator is because it includes a broad range of gods and is used knowingly or unknowingly by the vast majority of theist I've dealt with. By disproving the "Simple Definition" of conscious creator I have also disproved every single definition of god that contains those 2 elements. It is simple to point out the fallacy of an anthropomorphic god. Deism is a little more difficult.Ok so what is your definition of god? And why is it worthy of the title?