Math_Enthusiast

I don't think that's how the conversation would go. Clearly both of us know what "exist" means, and at some point, the term was explained to us.

So the two Gods aren't identical, since one has absolute certainty he is all-powerful, and the other one doesn't.

Human logic can be only one of these 3:

1) Circular

2) Based on premises which are accepted as truth without asking for reason for the premises

3) Infinite reasoning

All 3 of these forms of logic are flawed.

1) is a logical fallacy.

2) is based on no proof.

3) cannot be proven at all, since infinity cannot be demonstrated.

However, if we accept any of these as basis for our logic, we end up proving God.

1) Circular logic: God exists because Bible says so. Bible is true because it is the word of God.

2-1) Unquestionable premise: God exists because it says so in the Bible. Bible is unquestionable.

(Awkward moment for people who think feelings are unquestionable).

2-2) If feelings are unquestionable, that means God exists because many people feel the presence of God.

3) Infinite reasoning: God exists because of infinite amount of reasons, such as God1, God2, God3...

So therefore, no matter what logic we use, God exists.

1. Does this mean that God must exist? Why?
   
2. Does this mean that the Christian God must exist? Why?
   
3. If this isn't meant to be a prerequisite for a proof of God, where are you going with this?
   
4. Can you prove that Christianity exists?
   

We can do that for "exist" too. ("That apple exists. Now imagine a purple apple with a smiley face. That apple doesn't exist.")

I think your argument boils down to saying that hypothetically a God could exist who isn't as powerful as they think. I agree that there's probably some conception of God that meets those criteria. I brought up Christian conceptions of God because you mentioned the Christian religion a number of times in your original post.

Real means "accurate, not imaginary." We can go on defining terms, but I'm fairly sure you know what they mean.

Again I'd appeal to Occam's razor, but I have a feeling you've got something prepared on that front...

God is typically defined as having absolute knowledge, in the same way that a person "knows" they are sentient or feel pain. (I think, therefore I am.) Even if the pain is purely psychological, it's still "pain" in that a person is experiencing it. It's odd to think of someone "knowing" absolute truths in this way, but that's what "all-knowing" means. God has the same amount of certainty that he exists outside of time that we have in knowing we exist.

The state of having objective reality.

I think you're saying that we have no way of knowing whether anything is "real" except for logical concepts, but I also think Occam's razor applies here.

There has to be some means by which that happens, and no entity can be more powerful than an all-powerful being.

Add to that the fact that God exists outside of time and knows exactly what will happen at every point in the future.

All of His power will disappear next Thursday at noon, and even He doesn't know it. There is no way for Him to know this, and there is no way for Him to stop it from happening.

What you're suggesting is incompatible with the concept of God, since he created and controls time.

1. Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
   
2. If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
3. Christians: Can you refute what I said regarding the possibility that God will lose all of His power next Thursday at noon? You may want to start with challenge 1 for this.
   

If I rang you and told you I was in England and that it was raining outside.  What evidence from this can you give to a court room? 

1. You can give evidence that someone rang you.  2. You might recognise my voice and state that you were confident that it was me, due to past knowledge.  Of course, in our new world of AI technology, it is possible that someone has generated a copy of my voice.  So if the court were to ask you if you were sure that you were talking to a real person or an AI-generated voice, you might have to concede that you can't be sure.  Unless of course you are an expert and are able to determine such distinctions. You would need to establish your credentials and expertise and explain why it wasn't AI-generated.  

You couldn't say where I was located. I said I was in England, but that is just me telling you.  That is what we call "hearsay".  And the fact that I said it was raining. Again that is hearsay.   

3. You would be able to say with some confidence that when you spoke to me on the phone, I was alive.  

But that would be about all you could say.  Hearsay is not just a rumour. It is anything really that someone represents to you that is not first-hand evidence of yourself. 

The Bible has lots of people writing lots of different books.  There are people who were direct eyewitnesses to some events.  There are however lots of hearsay witness accounts.   Hearsay if it is corroborated is still hearsay.  It might confirm the truth but doesn't necessarily do so. For instance, if someone was next to me when I rang you and they confirmed that I was in England, that might corroborate it somewhat, but it is not definitive proof. It really is just further hearsay from a second witness. 

These are fascinating questions.  Finding out what is true is not the easiest thing to do in the world. All of us start with different approaches.  How do we know that 1 plus 1 = 2?   Mostly because we have been told so.   Yes, we have done the experiments and proved it. Haven't we? Or are we just following the logic behind it to a conclusion that is predetermined? Why is 1 plus 1, 2? We have definitions. We have logic. Why is logic right? Why is logic a plausible measuring stick? Because it works. Well, most of the time. Sometimes. Depending upon if we use proper logic.  But what happens if we don't use the right logic or if we are using fallacies? How would we know?  someone comes along with an alternative view of the world, for example, the earth revolves around the sun. How do we know he is right or wrong? 

We start with what we know.  I jump up and I land in the same spot.  Hmmm. the earth doesn't seem to have moved. How could the earth be moving then? I look at the sky. The sun comes up in the morning and it goes down at night. We still call it sunrise and sunset.  Does that observation prove one thing or the other?  I ask the world's best scientists at the time - 400 years ago.  99% of them say - there is a consensus - overwhelming consensus - that the sun goes around the earth and all the evidence points that way.  Should I trust the one who denies this - and whose theory seems to cut away at all of my own observations? At what point do I say "There is enough proof" to satisfy me? And does my satisfaction really matter when it comes to truth? 

This is one of the significant philosophical issues of seeking the truth.  Of course, in our day and age, there are even more troubles.  After all, it is politically incorrect to say truth exists or absolutes exist.   We are all to embrace a relativistic approach. Flexible. Fluid even.  50 years ago we KNEW that males and females were different because they had observable identifying organs. Now, the identifying organs apparently mean nothing. It is what "I feel" is true that is what matters.  Reason and modernism have been thrown out and replaced with post-modernism and feelings.  

I don't see any circularity in using the external universe as a reference to prove our theories about it. This approach relies on an external form of reference, rather than using the proposition itself to prove itself. Therefore, it does not constitute circular reasoning.

It appears that your conviction is that solipsism should be dismissed because you believe it would be unhelpful to accept that nothing can be objectively determined or experienced. However, you haven't provided any reasoning beyond your opinion to support this claim.

I 'think I'd want more,

But I'm not sure how well an Ego/ The Individual would weather so many years.

Will I remember my childhood?

Who I was?

There's a game called Kenshi,

Where some intelligent robots eventually need to reset to their factory start,

Or they start going weird.

I view strongly my memory, as part of who I am,

Yet,

One can only manage 'so much memory I'd figure.

Though one can suppose in this immortal scenario, perfect memory I suppose.

I'd 'imagine (But not know) that some old people are lonely, look forward to meeting their family, friends in the afterlife,

Of course with us all, we 'expect to die sooner, than later, later being 300 + years.

Of suicide,

Are people then not given the freedom to quit living when they want?

I suppose if one saw death and suicide as unequivocal evil or a choice only a crazy person would choose,

Society 'might remove from people the ability to die.

But you say crisis, implying it might be acceptable in some situations,

But that in a 'normal life, a person would be expected to want to live. . .

Hm,

Yep, and most of us can handle that. Those who can't are referred to as "suicidal," and that's not considered good or normal. It's considered a crisis.

Good health might be cheating a bit,

It feels a bit as saying,

How long would you want to live, if you wanted to live?

An attempt to bring heaven to earth so to speak,

For there 'is pain in existence,

Maybe pain in heaven too,

But on Earth, 'certainly there is war, jobs, disease, depression, accidents, loss, change.

'Some parts might be amendable,

But if a person lived infinitely, seems likely they'd 'eventually want to die, for 'some reason.

I agree though, that humans often want more.

Just assume statement cancels itself out,

This statement is, Positive,

A lie, Negative,

1 minus 1=0

Okay, so you have now clarified that it is not the only such book, but the entirety of my argument after this still stands.

It doesn't because I didn't make such a claim. Your argument doesn't refute what I said.

When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.

Behold! This is the Holy Book of Terry, written here in this forum. This book is infallible. Everything written here is absolutely true!

So by your logic that's on equal footing with the bible now... right? No? If this counts as hearsay how does the Bible not count as hearsay?

Consider the hypothetical in which I actually believed in all of this stuff, and I made that very clear. You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.

You just confirm my last point. 

Well, I quite deliberately made that "book" of mine have no reference to Terry beyond its name, but if you still find this so problematic, suppose that I am the one being referred to when "Terry" is said.

If Terry didn't write the book, who did? You? and what are your credentials?

Who knows? In either case, it's still hearsay!

Not if the 20 people give first-hand testimony of what they saw. They're not speaking hearsay. They're giving evidence. Of course, if I hear that evidence and tell someone else, then it's hearsay. 

A girl gets raped. Man denies it. No corroboration from any DNA evidence or other circumstantial evidence. Her evidence is not considered hearsay. It just hasn't been substantiated. And more than that - it hasn't been deemed untrue. Just not verified. But it is still not hearsay.

You know, sort of like if a bunch of people believed that an all-powerful God who could have saved us all with the snap of his fingers instead decided to have us brutally murder His son. And why did we need saving with such a powerful God to watch over us? Because... (hmm... what's something equally ridiculous to the whole "Magic Cactus" thing...) he made a talking snake, and he knew everything that the snake was doing, (in fact he had control over it!) but he let it convince the people he made to go against him, and so then we all needed saving from the curse that he put on them. I suppose I should also say what they could possibly have done to "go against him." Maybe they ate an apple that gave them knowledge that he didn't want them to have. To add to the theme so far, I suppose he created the apple tree! Even better, he left them in a garden with it! Imagine if 2.2 billion people believed that stuff. Wouldn't that be weird? I hope that I have cleared up any confusion as to why I consider this a perfectly valid analogy.

Plausible? See a previous part of this post. Also, evidence? What evidence? Do tell!

LOL @ you. First you need to learn what evidence is and what hearsay is. 

I explained what I meant. I suggested that you demand a higher standard of proof for religion than you do for other truths. I provided various standards that are used for different finding truth. 

Please, Have another read. I didn't say what you are suggesting.

I said that if a holy book doesn't claim infallibility we can deduct that from the list of potential infallible books.

So basically, the Bible claims to be infallible, and other holy books don't, therefore it's the only one that could possibly be true.

On the other hand, if a book claims infallibility it DOESN'T prove it is infallible. Yet it ought to be tested further.  There are about 3 or 4 books that claim infallibility.  None of them might be infallible. Yet, all of them can't be since they contradict each other.  Yet it provides us with a starting point.  

But let's assume for the sake of the argument - your argument -  that somehow that Terry and not you wrote something here in this forum.  After all, we all know, that Terry didn't write it and you did to make your point.

And this is part of your problem and why it is not equal to even the false claims of some religious books, let alone the Bible.  We know it is a joke.  

Previously you have merely asserted that Terry is infallible and that he listens to the Magic Cactus.  Since you are telling the story, and not Terry that makes it hearsay. The Bible is a book that tells a story about history.  It is about 40 different authors over 4000 years telling a consistent story.  The bible is not infallible because I say it is. That would be hearsay.  The Bible tells its own story.  It claims its own infallibility.  Whatever I say about it is hearsay.  Same as whatever you say about Terry and the magic cactus is hearsay.  that's why I said produce Terry and let him speak.  

The bible's authors all admitted that they were sinful creatures and prone to mistakes.  Many told lies in their lives. If you understood infallibility this would not be a concern for you.

There are more differences than you have articulated.  And what you fail to realise is that people believed its infallibility well before it was ever for sale.  And as for the book of Terry to be accepted as not good, that is baloney.  No one knows about the book of Terry - except you.  

In the middle of the Second World War 11 there was a book burning. And many thousands of bibles were burnt.  The bible's infallibility is not subject to the whim of the majority. 

DO you know what hearsay is?  It sounds like you need to do a refresher course.

Did the 20 people in the first part see the pig in your living room? 

 If they did and told some people and then soon a 1000 people heard and believed, then the first 20 people are providing first-hand eye witness testimony of what they saw.

The 1000 people who then believe what they heard from the first 20 are not eye-witnesses of the pig, but of what people have told them.  We wouldn't necessarily believe what the 1000 people heard is truth or lies.  We don't have enough evidence one way or the other. We would have to go and ask the 1000 why they think it is true. We would then go and talk to the original 20. Of course, even though the first 20 did see a pig, doesn't mean that you or I are going to believe them ipso facto.  We might try and determine if we can go the house and see the pig. But we might not be able to - since the pig has died since the original story was told and so we might deduce it was just a story.  An urban myth.

Or we might ask ourselves another question - we go to the house and see if there is any evidence that the pig was there?  Perhaps we might find some pig excrement. Or the place smells of pig.

Then we can't know for sure - since someone might have planted the excrement or sprayed the air with pig smell.  But there would seem to be circumstantial evidence. We could add that evidence to the eye witness testimony and draw some conclusions.

We might eventually take the view - it's nonsense. We know it's nonsense because there has never been a pig in this country ever. Or we might leave the question open and start to question the credibility of the witnesses.  What would be their motive to lie about this? DO they have a history of telling lies? Of concocting silly stories. What are they going to get out of it? 

The second part of your story - with one pig is no different.  That is the point.  Some people do their homework and some don't.  You seem to be saying that because some people don't do their homework and believe whatever, that everyone does that.  It's simply not true.

And the reality is - if one person does there homework and comes up with a conclusion that the evidence in the bible is plausible then that shouldn't be dismissed because there are a whole lot of gullible people. 

Not at all. I have asked you to produce Terry.  At least I have a book. 

I'm not dodging.  I don't think that all religions work the same.  Many work simply on fear or expectations.  

In our modern secular world, many people are taught the sciences from their textbooks and they believe it to be true. They never test it or check the credibility of their authors. They assume it's true.   For many people - today science has become the new religion. Scientists are like priests.  They are believed to be true at first glance. Sometimes they get caught when they are dodgy. Sometimes they never get caught.   But most scientists I think are genuine and are doing what they think is best. Many others do it for the money or the prestige.  Public scientists like the tenure and the grants that come from places like the UN. Private scientists like the kickbacks they get.  But most people in the community would never question them.  Unless - it is a scientist backing a tobacco company and some might then assume a bias. 

Religion and science works in similar ways. It is a plea to authority.  Yet this doesn't mean that their working tools are necessarily dodgy or have not been validated in the most appropriate ways.  

I take it you have never studied what makes literature authentic or not. Or how they are validated or not? 

And I also assume from your comments that you inconsistently apply a higher standard to some sorts of knowledge, such as revelation, than you would to either logic or experience. 

It's fallacious because it is not really a circular argument at this time.  It's fallacious because we need to rely upon your hearsay to adopt that position.  Religions usually have that first-hand witness. The Bible is unusual among holy books that actually claim it is infallible. The Koran doesn't.  The Bible is self-testifying. When we check others, we discover there are very few that ACTUALLY make that claim.  In my view, this means we can deduct any book that doesn't make such a claim. It doesn't prove those that do make that claim, but to not make this claim certainly removes it as being possible. Books that attempt to prove it based on the validity of something else - such as the Book of Mormon also rule themselves out- since they rely upon hearsay.  

• Both proclaim their own infallibility.
  
• Both were written by one or more human beings, who could very well have been lying or mistaken.
  

• One has sold millions of physical copies, and one just came into existence right here, right now.
  
• One is widely accepted as true and good, the other is not.
  

SO what? How is that even an argument? Of course we are subjective. Oh well then I suppose I should stop thinking. 

Everyone relies on intuition for some things. Most people make most decisions everyday by intuition. And mostly that means by their feelings. I feel like eating this. Or that. I feel like putting this on or that. The point is twisting things is what people will do when they don't want to accept someone else's point of view.  You are correct it is almost dishonest at times.  Yet this doesn't imply it is ALWAYS for ALL People. 

There are lots of naive people in the world. There are lots of people who wants things and need things and are desperate.  People tend to follow things that make them feel part of it.  Many religions operate that way as do schools and uni's and secular places. Like footy clubs.  

I also happen to think that there are many copy cats in the world.  But a copy cat implies an original.   The question is how do we determine the original from the copycats? Some skeptically add - how do we know there is an original? That too is a good question.  I say - let's go back and examine axioms.  

Your argument is wrong because it proves too much.  

You see, not only religious arguments for God's existence are dependent upon circular reasoning, but  EVERY worldview and indeed any attempt to prove anything. 

Axioms are the beginning point of EVERY argument.  

Thus to carry on as though Terri and his magic Cacti are doing anything particularly silly BECAUSE of Circular reasoning is inconsistent. 

Logic, Experience (senses), and Revelation are all sources of what some people claim are truth.  

Each of these is an axiom. All axioms are circular.  Circular reasoning can be a fallacy, but not always.  The thing is to distinguish between when it is necessary and when it is fallacy.  Your argument FAILS because you don't even understand that there is a difference. 

Behold My Magic Cactus. It knows all and tells only truth.

Terry will never lie, as He has My power, which is pure and incapable of deception.

Then they can pay a psychologist.

No. Ranting into psychologist does not decrease suicide rates. We see that religious countries that dont have psychology at all actually have surprisingly low suicide rates. It is like psychology is unnecessary waste of money.

So more ranting on both sides. Usually, asking private questions is considered rude, as well as asking stupid questions. But psychologists dont seem to have a problem with being rude.

More reason for  them to believe in God. Or they can pay to rant with psychologist.

Be that as it may, lets discuss what “objectively true” means (or doesn’t mean). You seem to mean it in a non-local way, such that a non-human, intelligent being in another star system would acknowledge the truth of your statement (assuming that it was presented in a way intelligible to that being), and that is always true, no matter what. Is this correct?

If it is, you probably would need to educate said intelligent being about the context in which the statement is true. And it is at least possible that said being could have an entirely different way of perceiving the universe and communicating about it, and disagree (as I am disagreeing) based on its own understanding.

For instance, for a being which perceives everything as a one, continuous thing, talking about separate things would make no sense. Why focus on a particular microscopic feature of the universe as a separate thing, they might say. And I'm sure there are many other ways of seeing things that could possibly cause a being to deny the truth of your statement.

I'm being really nit-picky here because to me "objectively true" is an extreme claim about something that sets off my bs detector. Of course I could be wrong, but you haven't convinced me yet.

I don't see any confusion here. The "definition" is a human linguistic construct.

I see in that sentence a collection of symbols which is meaningful to human beings. The symbols are not meaningful in any other sense that I know of.

What I don't see in that sentence is any connection to an "external reality." It is self-referential and says nothing about the physical world. Is there some other world that I don't know about?

Repeated correlation is causation. You are supposed to know that the only way to establish causation is through correlation. I dont see how can you possibly not know this.

Thanks for admitting that religion prevents suicide. So now we are getting somewhere.

No. The high suicide rate in Finland disagrees, obviously. Finland is very bad at preventing suicides. Just when I thought that I was getting somewhere with you, you went back and said this nonsense.

No. I went to both psychologist and psychiatrist by force. I dont see how could you possibly not understand that one person can go to both psychologist and psychiatrist. This is what I am talking about. People cannot comprehend what is being said to them. I literally have to break things down to you and feed you the simplest information possible, and you still fail to understand.

No. When I want help by talking and get suggestions, I talk to God. God is the creator of worlds. Psychologist is a deluded puppet of its government. Didnt we already established that religion is much better at preventing suicides?

It happened when I was in prison.

One of us googled "Are mental illnesses on the rise in USA". One of us didnt.

One of compared suicide rates of countries where psychology tried to replace religion, to suicide rates of countries where psychology is almost non-existent. One of us didnt.

I was forced into psychological treatment and forced to use psychiatric drugs.

It greatly diminished my IQ, but my IQ is still greatly above that of other humans. When I make arguments, people usually dont understand what I am saying. I guess too complicated for them.

I don't think that they would be quite as opposed to other suggestions.  (Like what I proposed!...

"The argument was that psychologists oppose to making those laws, without which you cannot realize what you suggested."

So yes, it does help people. So yes, it's an actual job.

"Therefore, it is of no surprise that psychology didnt result in decrease of mental illnesses."

Don't conclusions 1 and 2 propose new laws? If you can propose new laws, why can't I?

The argument was that psychologists oppose to making those laws, without which you cannot realize what you suggested.

Even so, non-profits still need money so that the employees can eat

If you want to eat, get an actual job.

Non-profit does not mean free. Non-profit means that the goal is to help people, rather than to make money.

It was already pointed out that psychology doesnt help people. So if it is not free and doesnt help, its a waste.

This was already disproven by:

"The psychologists disagree with conclusions 1 and 2, but agree with the study's conclusion.".

You cannot take a child away unless dictated by the law.

She just so happens to work for a non-profit.

Then you go to refute yourself by saying:

It's not free because psychologists, like the rest of us, have to eat.

You have shown that A and the proposition “every statement implies itself” can be classified as true using the rules of human language and the rules of human logic. That classification is not external to humanity, and does not show that they are “very real parts of external reality.”

I dont consider psychology as a science. The psychology related studies usually have high failure rate.

Any ideology that says "You are bad because this happened in your childhood" is not only very stupid, but one could even say pointless.

Prayer is more likely than psychology to cure the depression.

So naturally, to compensate for its high failure rate, psychology turns to studies in hope that it discovers something that was previously hidden.

There are only two most logical conclusions that can come from this study's conclusion:

1) Make antipathy illegal, so it stops harming children

2) Force parents to pay compensations for harming their children.

Here, you will notice something. The psychologists disagree with conclusions 1 and 2, but agree with the study's conclusion.

This is equal to saying "We agree that this problem exists, but we dont want to do anything real to solve it".

What psychologists really want - and what the point of these studies is - is to get more people to visit psychologists so that psychologists can earn more money.

Unlike the religion, the psychology is not a non-profit organization.

Unlike the prayer and the talk with God, the talk with psychologist is not free.