Once I've taken time to read through all the text, I'll respond.
That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.What are these findings? And where can they be found?
Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality?Non sequitur. You are projecting and misusing a context of "objectivity" while I'm not. My mind is necessary, once again, for my own subjective experience--including any conceptualization of physicality, just as your mind is necessary for your subjective experience. Communicating a standard "between minds"--as far as one can tell--does not necessarily constitute an "objective" physical reality. Even if I were dead, it would not make your experience, or that of any other less subjective.
No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm.The error in your reasoning here is that even we were to entertain "the veracity of your second statement, my argument would still hold. Because if the mindful being "no longer existed," his or her mind would no longer exist. Thus, it would not "count" as part of "all minds." But this indulgence is irrational because neither you nor I can perceive or appreciate nonexistence.
Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.Whose "physiology"?
Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is.How?
Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is.I worship no one. I acknowledge and accept God's being; I do not worship it.
You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God.I have not.
Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.Demonstrate how all three are applicable to the argument for God's existence at the exclusion of all other gods.
He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification.Once again: what does that have to do with logical necessity?
How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?Non sequitur. I never claimed Confucius wasn't subjective.
Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.Still doesn't register. I have not once excluded God. I haven't disputed God's existence. Are you arguing against the belief that God is not the only "god"? That's your prerogative, I suppose.
As I said before, each perception is different.Redundant.
My understanding of God is different than yours.Redundant.
One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.It is of no consequence how one's sees God. I've argued that God exists. This has little to do with how you or I "understand" God's description. Either way, it wouldn't change that God exists.
Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?Non sequitur. Never stated that he was "infallible."
Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?The number of men is not significant. And I don't argue that Confucius should be believed.
People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?Such as? As for "internal" pieces of evidence, Confucius' relays are sufficient.
There you have it. I can't ask Confucius.Obviously.You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.And I've given it to you. You reject it.
The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.And how does the number of authors or the number of "1st-hand witnesses" qualify or quantify its truth? You're imputing an ad numerum fallacy.
How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?Doesn't matter. The number of 1st hand witnesses contrary to the popular belief cultivated by commonwealth legal systems doesn't necessarily inform truth.
The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.66 writings is evidence of 66 writings. The number, once again, is insignificant.
What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.We were contrasting and comparing Tien and God, and you're asking "Is Tien a person"? I would presume you know that which I mean when I state that Tien is deity especially since in another response, you demonstrated an understanding.
Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.That is for you to answer rather than shift the burden to satisfy your appeals to ignorance and incredulity. That is, you must substantiate how personhood does not come from the impersonal; that consciousness does not come from that which is devoid of it; that agency does not come from that which is devoid of intent. The floor is yours, again.
Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you.Once again, "my" doesn't register. I do not possess Tien. And I already know that you're arguing that "I'm wrong." This is based on an irrational presumption of objectivity which would necessitate the acquisition and processing of information independent of your subjective proclivities. And you've insinuated that consensus somehow remedies this. Subjective + Subjective = Subjective.
That means nothing. It is a tautology.If you know it's tautological, then why are you still asking questions about it?
Once I've taken time to read through all the text, I'll respond.
I have twice.
Hardly fantasy when compared with biblical tales.
Though I do not deny the validity of any hypothesis that attempts to resolve the unresolvable.But "him".....A misogynist god created in your own image...as ever.And what do I "replace him with".I replace him with with a vague hypothesis, a tenuous possibility of a GOD principle that affords everything purpose.....No more, no less.....No tablets of stone and unsubstantiated meetings up mountains or floods and impossibly big boats or wise men out of the east and blokes nailed to crosses and resurrection.
Ha!....And you have the arrogance to say that I fantasise.
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist.
Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves. Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void.
How is it not logical. Please back up your thinking instead of just asserting.
Are you saying that you will still exist in the physical or earthly realm when you die, other than being dust or ashes?
Did you always exist then in this physical realm? You have said previously that you had a beginning. I would argue that you had a beginning, that you began to exist.
Will you always exist in this physical realm? If so, give me evidence of this.
My mind is not the necessary mind for the existence of the universe, only for my perception of it.
Common, meaning specific meaning is necessary, and words in context convey specific meaning. There is a standard that you cross and confuse. Thus, a home is different from a factory although sometimes a home can house or include a factory and visa versa.
Yes, confirmed through the coming into existence of others makes it logical to believe. It is most reasonable to believe. If you think not, are you being reasonable? Explain.I confirm it by conversing with you. You exist apart from me, or are you confirming and saying you are a figment of my imagination and that you do not exist as anything separate from my mind? If so, my mind is necessary and you are not. I think I will create a new imaginary character. I will also eliminate any physical record that my conversation with you existed since this conversation thread is just my imagination working overtime. Bye!The impossibility of the contrary or the unlikehood of the contrary is sufficient reason.
Then try stepping in front of a speeding bus and not suffer any physical harm or hurt since it is all perception. I think you will find that the physical bus is more than just a perception but it actually exists. And not only you perceive it.
Am I speaking to THE necessary being here? Are you it? I know I am not. My conscious experience began. I became aware of my being.
Can you confirm this?
You have confirmed it, yourself, so your previous paragraph is answered by your present one.
I guessed as much about your profile since 1930 and your mental acumen at that age (90) was unreasonable. I surmise you are fairly young in relation to my age although I was not aware that you made up the whole thing.
It seems to be a common thread in our conversation, your invention or creation.
Then you are not necessary for its existence as has been my contention from the start. I was offering a scenario based on you as the creator of your own universe since you seemed to be suggesting you are necessary for the physical universe. It took a lot of effort to hear differently.
I was following through on your comments that seemed to imply you created the physical universe via your mind.
I'm not being mean. I am just investigating your thought process and trying to understand what you believe by candid questions and following through with the implications. I am not going to defend myself further. I initiated the conversation because I thought your position was inconsistent. If you do not believe I am here in good faith then it is your problem, not mine.
It is being argued that A mind is necessary but that mind is not your mind or mine.
You turned it into your mind being that necessary mind for the existence of the physical universe.
While this is true, it does not equate to there is no physical universe without your mind existing.
If I buy one dog, then buy another dog, that does not mean I bought three dogs. The concept of oneness exists without your mind thinking it.
. It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning, unless you can point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality.
I am showing what happens when you just invent meaning such as saying a house is a factory (house = factory) without qualification.All three laws, contradiction, identity, and middle inclusion.House = factory stated without qualification and clarification is contravening these laws.
You confuse my subjective mind with objective knowledge. It is still possible for my subjective mind to understand objectively or else communication would be impossible.
Are you saying that when someone communicates something it is not possible to be the authors meaning?
It follows that if your mind is the necessary mind in the physical universe existing, then you are creating what is necessary from your mind.
I am following through on the consequences of your stated belief system as you have conveyed it, and trying to make sense of it. I question to find out more of what you believe. I am discovering contradictions and implausibility then highlighting them.
I can go back to our OP and subsequent posts again to qualify my concerns, as you stated them, if you like.
Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist.How am I capable of confirming "nothing?"
Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves. Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void.Where are you getting this from? This is the reason I always mention "seem" is not an argument. Quote me verbatim and demonstrate how your recent "reference" compares with mine.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).You see the problem here, right? Your conclusion not only assumes there's something outside of time and space, but your first premise says everything has a cause and therefore cannot logically lead to a conclusion hinged on something having no cause. It's contradictory. And even if it were right, there's no connective tissue between this 'something' and any specific god.
Why does anything exist?
For example, the moral code that humans follow,
as well as the thirst for justice innate in our species.
Nonetheless, If something does not require creation then there is no need for a creator anyway. Thereby, an infinite God negates itself.
OK, then please demonstrate conclusively something eists outside of space and time.
Then demonstrate that something is the god of the bible.
It shouldn't be hard. I didn't make any argument at all. I'm just saying that "Everything that exists has a cause, except this one thing that exists outside of space and time" is not a sound argument. It's special pleading and undemonstrated.
Leibing's thinking jumps to a specific conclusion from premise 1 that is entirely unearned: a specific character. What is the explanation for the existence of this being?
It is "it didn't have a beginning"? Why doesn't this same exception potentially apply to the universe itself, exclusive of god or gods?
Let me guess, is it because "math works," because "these books say so," or "because how else would it work?"
Why does anything exist?You know very well I have answered this: I don't know and I'm not sure it matters.It seems to matter very much to you. Is there a reason and purpose for your life, or are humanity and organic life just a biological accident?
You're the one who claims all the answers with the "makes sense of the universe" baloney, which you never show actually making sense in any way that I understand the phrase.
I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own.
Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?
He exists outside of space/time continuum.
1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.Can you show me something that exists that has no explanation for its existence?
Then why exist
Can you make sense of the universe? It appears not:
I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own.I know. The rest of it is all dissembling to try and avoid this point: you cannot do it to anyone's satisfaction but your own. The rest of your wall of text is kind of moot from there.
Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?Do you know hat special pleading is? I know I've explained it to you before. "Everything that begins to exist has a beginning, except this one thing." The bold is special pleading and really the central pillar to your argument. How do I do this, analogous to what you think I believe? Where is the "except" that would denote special pleading?
the biblical definition of God speaks of Him as an eternal being. I am not SP that, the Bible says as much. Thus, it boils down to who you place your ultimate authority in. You added "except this one thing," and yes, the parentheisis are mine. I added that. Here is my statement and the highlighted text above is your addition.