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

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 23 2005, 10:19 PM'] see, this is perfect. get someone to believe in existence, and they eventually have to believe in God. that's becuase God is the very DEFINITION of existence, YHWH.

And you are right, there is nothing to suggest something can simply not exist. At least in the case of matter, we have the Law of Conservation of Matter meaning that matter cannot be created or destroyed, i.e. everything must exist. This simply shows the universality of God who is Existence. Existence is universal and cannot be changed, therefore God is unviersal and cannot be chagned. Existence in the same way is not affected by time, all the matter that existed at the moment of the big bang exists right now, therefore existence is non-temporal and God is non-temporal. This is an apologetic point I have been trying to refine, Athiest Alex here on PM didn't get it when I tried it on him... anyway, I need to refine it to really use is as proof to the athiest, or at least as a starting ground. [/quote]
somebody that agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!!Maybe Im not crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Paphnutius]

[quote]then you would be using other facts (all which are based from empirical evidence) to come to a conclusion about another truth.
[/quote]

Yes but I was simply pointing out that you do not have to have direct empirical facts to deduce something. That is the magic of logic.

[quote]that is what this is all about........THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!!!!
this is a bad analogy because physical matter would exist in place of the cheeseberger......i think you are missing the point i am trying to make.
[/quote]

They appear to think so. I am not defending them, simply saying that they disagree. And no it is not a poor example. They may retort that the universe is infinite. It never ends, but has always and will always exist. Your answer? In place of the reality of God, they may place the reality of an infinite universe. THat solves your nothingness problem.

[quote]but i have more reason to believe that there is a god than one would to believe there isnt. The existence of a man named jesus christ (who claimed to be the son of god), people who have claimed to have had encounters with god, the bible that says there is a god, etc. (all of which are or were in physical existence)
[/quote]

With that I was simply pointing out that there are beliefs in our system that are not based on any other fact than divine revelation. If that person denies divine revelation (for one becuase it preuspposes God) then what? Mind you all that you mentioned above is divine revelation.

[quote]its helpful because it points us in the correct direction. [/quote]

Then please do not say that it was created by Satan or that we have no reason to do so, because we can and do.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 23 2005, 11:46 PM']
Yes but I was simply pointing out that you do not have to have direct empirical facts to deduce something. That is the magic of logic.

give me an example



They appear to think so. I am not defending them, simply saying that they disagree. And no it is not a poor example. They may retort that the universe is infinite. It never ends, but has always and will always exist. Your answer? In place of the reality of God, they may place the reality of an infinite universe. THat solves your nothingness problem.

they do disagree but without reason. They have no reason to believe that the universe always existed........there is no evidence of anything always existing (in the physical realm). That is simply just a concept (to believe the universe has always existed).


With that I was simply pointing out that there are beliefs in our system that are not based on any other fact than divine revelation. If that person denies divine revelation (for one becuase it preuspposes God) then what? Mind you all that you mentioned above is divine revelation.

I agree, its still more evidence then what they have though.

Then please do not say that it was created by Satan or that we have no reason to do so, because we can and do.

Here's my logic=> nothingness:false:lie:evil:satan. [/quote]
i wish i knew how to comment on different things individually.

[Paphnutius]

Why the angry face? Have I said something to offend you....

Here is how you can break the other persons quote up...copy the text you want to quote, puch quote above the text entry box, paste, close the quote above.

[quote]give me an example
[/quote]

Existence is not a direct empirical fact that leads to the understanding of the existence of God as simple. One may infer from existence a first causer, God. This first causer must be pure act for if it were not then there would be potentiality that would be acutalized which would require another causer and that is not the case with the first cuaser. If something is pure act then it must be simple for a variety of reasons that I am not going to go into. Read the Summa, it helps. See...we may infer from existence a first casuer that is pure act, and this first causer must be simple and complete. See, can you directly go from existence to that without building the coherence truths? No.

[quote]they do disagree but without reason. They have no reason to believe that the universe always existed........there is no evidence of anything always existing (in the physical realm). That is simply just a concept (to believe the universe has always existed).
[/quote]

They would simply say the same thing about you believing in God. If God has always existed, then why not the universe?

[quote]I agree, its still more evidence then what they have though.[/quote]

They of course disagree...but the point still stands. Divine revelation presupposes a God. So how do you reconcile that if your evidence depends on a presupposistion that it exists? That does not count for evidence if it does that to them.

[quote]Here's my logic=> nothingness:false:lie:evil:satan. [/quote]

Yes but as we discussed earlier talking about a sqaure-circle not exisiting is not false. It cannot exist. That is not a false statement, therefore not a lie, so not evil, ergo not from Satan.

[jmjtina]

ever read Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed?

pretty much answers your question......

[Semalsia]

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

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

[Paphnutius]

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

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

[Aloysius]

EXISTENCE exists.

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

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

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

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

[Paphnutius]

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

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

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

Edited April 24, 2005 by Paphnutius

[infinitelord1]

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


What reason do we have to question Existence?

[Paphnutius]

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

Edited April 24, 2005 by Paphnutius

[infinitelord1]

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

[Paphnutius]

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

[infinitelord1]

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

[Paphnutius]

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