Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The logical basis of God

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:42:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For many, "God" represents an improbable sort of magician; a being on the same footing as fairies and Santa Claus. They are unable to see why such a being would exist. Indeed, the concept of a "God" can do little to explain the existence of the universe when it lacks an explanation of its own. But in fact, God is an inevitable consequence of the relationship between constraint and freedom, logic and paradox, and is as fundamental as truth itself. Let me explain.

Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds, and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernibility and utility. But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox). This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity. But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium. That which has no complement is indistinguishable from its complement and therefore contains zero information. But if logic has no informational value, then neither does logical consistency. And if logical consistency has no informational value, then consistent and inconsistent theories are of equal validity (a contradiction).

If you really start out with nothing, then there is no preexisting information. You must first tell cancellation how to occur, and tell zero how to "fission" into two or more mutually cancelling entities. Since these "instructions" on how things should cancel consist of constraint - of restrictions that limit the nature of "nothing" - constraint has logical priority over cancellation. So we have to explain how the constraint got there in the first place, and we have to do it without appealing to any preexisting cancellation operation supposedly inherent in "nothing". By default, the entities comprising the system that we call "the sum of components within the space-time manifold" must themselves combine to form the constraint, and since neither the constraint nor its constituents equal "nothing", we're forced to introduce "something" at the very outset. This tells us that we're not really starting out with "nothing", but with unbound potential or UBT... something which, by its nature, contains everything that can possibly exist. That is, by interpreting 0 as the absence of something called "information", which implies that it equates to superficially unrestricted homogeneous (and therefore unitary) informational potential, which in turn equates to existential infinity, we're making it possible for 0 to represent the sort of cancellation point you envision. Since this implies that existence is a self-defined attribute - after all, there is no preexisting informational framework capable of defining it - only possibilities with the intrinsic ability to define and sustain their own existences can be actualized. This is what it takes to get "something" from "nothing".

One may be tempted to object to the idea of null constraint - to assert that there must always be some kind of constraint despite one's inability to define it in juxtaposition to its complement, and to take the position that this initial constraint "just exists". This, of course, disqualifies anyone from discussing (much less explaining) the genesis of the initial constraint. Sadly, failing to distinguish the initial constraint from its complement is to fail to define or distinguish the initial constraint, and this implies that one really has no initial constraint in mind after all. That is, while some would seem to believe that there must be some sort of initial constraint, they cannot define this constraint by distinguishing it from its negation (if they could, then this would compel them to admit the existence of the complementary relationship between logic and nonlogic (between constraint and paradox), and thus that both logic and nonlogic are superposed manifestations of something very much like UBT).

Let's cut to the chase: God, an entirely self-determinative entity, is simply a self-restriction of the unbound potential (i.e. pure freedom) from which he intrinsically emerges. Since reality has nothing but itself with which to distinguish itself from null constraint, and since reality must be self-consistent, this implies the existence of a monotheistic entity. Since constraint is necessarily a manifestation of unlimited freedom - the freedom to restrict - God is constantly given the chance to emerge. And since there is nothing external to God which could prevent God from emerging, he necessarily exists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:42:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
For many, "God" represents an improbable sort of magician; a being on the same footing as fairies and Santa Claus. They are unable to see why such a being would exist. Indeed, the concept of a "God" can do little to explain the existence of the universe when it lacks an explanation of its own. But in fact, God is an inevitable consequence of the relationship between constraint and freedom, logic and paradox, and is as fundamental as truth itself. Let me explain.

Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds, and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernibility and utility. But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox). This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity. But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium. That which has no complement is indistinguishable from its complement and therefore contains zero information. But if logic has no informational value, then neither does logical consistency. And if logical consistency has no informational value, then consistent and inconsistent theories are of equal validity (a contradiction).

If you really start out with nothing, then there is no preexisting information. You must first tell cancellation how to occur, and tell zero how to "fission" into two or more mutually cancelling entities. Since these "instructions" on how things should cancel consist of constraint - of restrictions that limit the nature of "nothing" - constraint has logical priority over cancellation. So we have to explain how the constraint got there in the first place, and we have to do it without appealing to any preexisting cancellation operation supposedly inherent in "nothing". By default, the entities comprising the system that we call "the sum of components within the space-time manifold" must themselves combine to form the constraint, and since neither the constraint nor its constituents equal "nothing", we're forced to introduce "something" at the very outset. This tells us that we're not really starting out with "nothing", but with unbound potential or UBT... something which, by its nature, contains everything that can possibly exist. That is, by interpreting 0 as the absence of something called "information", which implies that it equates to superficially unrestricted homogeneous (and therefore unitary) informational potential, which in turn equates to existential infinity, we're making it possible for 0 to represent the sort of cancellation point you envision. Since this implies that existence is a self-defined attribute - after all, there is no preexisting informational framework capable of defining it - only possibilities with the intrinsic ability to define and sustain their own existences can be actualized. This is what it takes to get "something" from "nothing".

One may be tempted to object to the idea of null constraint - to assert that there must always be some kind of constraint despite one's inability to define it in juxtaposition to its complement, and to take the position that this initial constraint "just exists". This, of course, disqualifies anyone from discussing (much less explaining) the genesis of the initial constraint. Sadly, failing to distinguish the initial constraint from its complement is to fail to define or distinguish the initial constraint, and this implies that one really has no initial constraint in mind after all. That is, while some would seem to believe that there must be some sort of initial constraint, they cannot define this constraint by distinguishing it from its negation (if they could, then this would compel them to admit the existence of the complementary relationship between logic and nonlogic (between constraint and paradox), and thus that both logic and nonlogic are superposed manifestations of something very much like UBT).

Let's cut to the chase: God, an entirely self-determinative entity, is simply a self-restriction of the unbound potential (i.e. pure freedom) from which he intrinsically emerges. Since reality has nothing but itself with which to distinguish itself from null constraint, and since reality must be self-consistent, this implies the existence of a monotheistic entity. Since constraint is necessarily a manifestation of unlimited freedom - the freedom to restrict - God is constantly given the chance to emerge. And since there is nothing external to God which could prevent God from emerging, he necessarily exists.

In the past, there were really two seemingly insurmountable paradoxes that stumped me: something from nothing and infinity. However, today, I have come to the conclusion there must indeed be something, in order for nothing to exist.

We talk about nothing, as though it were indefinite and as though it weren't something. Yet, we cannot experience or convey a nonexistent nothing, a nothing that has not being, a nothing that is meaningless. It is the very nature of contradiction that is intrinsic to reality. Nothing does not preclude something; it makes it possible; that which is meaningless does not negate meaning; without it, meaning has no meaning; paradox does not destroy logic but only creates it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 9:53:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:17:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:42:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
For many, "God" represents an improbable sort of magician; a being on the same footing as fairies and Santa Claus. They are unable to see why such a being would exist. Indeed, the concept of a "God" can do little to explain the existence of the universe when it lacks an explanation of its own. But in fact, God is an inevitable consequence of the relationship between constraint and freedom, logic and paradox, and is as fundamental as truth itself. Let me explain.

Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds, and avoiding paradox is precisely what gives logic its discernibility and utility. But if avoiding paradox gives logic its utility, then logic needs paradox in order to have utility (where the utility of logic tautologically resides in its power to exclude the negation of logic, i.e. paradox). This means that both logic and paradox exist in a mutually supportive capacity. But if so, then there is necessarily a medium of existence - a kind of "existential protomedium" or ontological groundstate - accommodating both logic and paradox. UBT is simply the name given to this protomedium. That which has no complement is indistinguishable from its complement and therefore contains zero information. But if logic has no informational value, then neither does logical consistency. And if logical consistency has no informational value, then consistent and inconsistent theories are of equal validity (a contradiction).

If you really start out with nothing, then there is no preexisting information. You must first tell cancellation how to occur, and tell zero how to "fission" into two or more mutually cancelling entities. Since these "instructions" on how things should cancel consist of constraint - of restrictions that limit the nature of "nothing" - constraint has logical priority over cancellation. So we have to explain how the constraint got there in the first place, and we have to do it without appealing to any preexisting cancellation operation supposedly inherent in "nothing". By default, the entities comprising the system that we call "the sum of components within the space-time manifold" must themselves combine to form the constraint, and since neither the constraint nor its constituents equal "nothing", we're forced to introduce "something" at the very outset. This tells us that we're not really starting out with "nothing", but with unbound potential or UBT... something which, by its nature, contains everything that can possibly exist. That is, by interpreting 0 as the absence of something called "information", which implies that it equates to superficially unrestricted homogeneous (and therefore unitary) informational potential, which in turn equates to existential infinity, we're making it possible for 0 to represent the sort of cancellation point you envision. Since this implies that existence is a self-defined attribute - after all, there is no preexisting informational framework capable of defining it - only possibilities with the intrinsic ability to define and sustain their own existences can be actualized. This is what it takes to get "something" from "nothing".

One may be tempted to object to the idea of null constraint - to assert that there must always be some kind of constraint despite one's inability to define it in juxtaposition to its complement, and to take the position that this initial constraint "just exists". This, of course, disqualifies anyone from discussing (much less explaining) the genesis of the initial constraint. Sadly, failing to distinguish the initial constraint from its complement is to fail to define or distinguish the initial constraint, and this implies that one really has no initial constraint in mind after all. That is, while some would seem to believe that there must be some sort of initial constraint, they cannot define this constraint by distinguishing it from its negation (if they could, then this would compel them to admit the existence of the complementary relationship between logic and nonlogic (between constraint and paradox), and thus that both logic and nonlogic are superposed manifestations of something very much like UBT).

Let's cut to the chase: God, an entirely self-determinative entity, is simply a self-restriction of the unbound potential (i.e. pure freedom) from which he intrinsically emerges. Since reality has nothing but itself with which to distinguish itself from null constraint, and since reality must be self-consistent, this implies the existence of a monotheistic entity. Since constraint is necessarily a manifestation of unlimited freedom - the freedom to restrict - God is constantly given the chance to emerge. And since there is nothing external to God which could prevent God from emerging, he necessarily exists.

In the past, there were really two seemingly insurmountable paradoxes that stumped me: something from nothing and infinity. However, today, I have come to the conclusion there must indeed be something, in order for nothing to exist.

We talk about nothing, as though it were indefinite and as though it weren't something. Yet, we cannot experience or convey a nonexistent nothing, a nothing that has not being, a nothing that is meaningless. It is the very nature of contradiction that is intrinsic to reality. Nothing does not preclude something; it makes it possible; that which is meaningless does not negate meaning; without it, meaning has no meaning; paradox does not destroy logic but only creates it.

I'm glad that you understand :)
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 12:53:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your style of writing needs work. You are using way too many technical words and overly complex sentences to explain things that you could easily say in a more understandable way. Like this sentence:

"Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds"

It honestly sounds like you're just trying to cram technical terms into that sentence and thats not at all how you would phrase that if you were just thinking to yourself about the topic.

Sometimes this style of writing is important in certain fields, when your motivation is more to prove your own credentials than to prove your idea, but that doesn't seem to be your goal here. Even when people understand what you've written, they will automatically treat your proposal with suspicion, because needlessly making a topic harder to understand feels like a strategy to trick people into not noticing flaws in an argument. If you write simply and frankly, you seem sincere and people will be more inclined to judge you based solely on what you are saying.

Not criticizing your general argument, just offering some advice on presentation.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 1:17:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 12:53:52 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Your style of writing needs work.

Most of this was copied verbatim.

You are using way too many technical words and overly complex sentences to explain things that you could easily say in a more understandable way. Like this sentence:

"Paradox is what results from self-referentially applying the negation functor of logic to logic itself within logical bounds"

I don't know what you're talking about. This sentence is the bare minimum to express that idea. It's perfectly clear.


It honestly sounds like you're just trying to cram technical terms into that sentence and thats not at all how you would phrase that if you were just thinking to yourself about the topic.

Sometimes this style of writing is important in certain fields, when your motivation is more to prove your own credentials than to prove your idea, but that doesn't seem to be your goal here. Even when people understand what you've written, they will automatically treat your proposal with suspicion, because needlessly making a topic harder to understand feels like a strategy to trick people into not noticing flaws in an argument. If you write simply and frankly, you seem sincere and people will be more inclined to judge you based solely on what you are saying.

Not criticizing your general argument, just offering some advice on presentation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness. Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't. So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:17:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What prevents me from proposing the existence of similar figures whose hypothetical definitions include boundlessness? How do you distinguish God from my clearly illegitimate inventions?

Not that I read the OP, but on the basis of this abbreviated argument, I believe the term "building castles in the sky" was coined for such reasoning.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 1:17:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 12:53:52 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Your style of writing needs work.

Most of this was copied verbatim.

Then your MLA needs work.

lol sorry, couldn't help it
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:22:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 8:17:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What prevents me from proposing the existence of similar figures whose hypothetical definitions include boundlessness? How do you distinguish God from my clearly illegitimate inventions?


They would all mean the same thing (their supposed differences would be superficial, and logically unwarranted according to the definition of boundlessness). Boundlessness is entirely general (hence, boundless being AKA God).

Not that I read the OP, but on the basis of this abbreviated argument, I believe the term "building castles in the sky" was coined for such reasoning.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 8:30:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For instance, a boundless cat is not a coherent concept, since this implies that it can't be a dog (which implies that it is bounded). So we're not even really talking about a cat.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 10:58:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 8:30:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For instance, a boundless cat is not a coherent concept, since this implies that it can't be a dog (which implies that it is bounded). So we're not even really talking about a cat.

I think I understand what you mean.

When people say "God," they are talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (though it feels wrong to define a boundless being). People retort by saying, "How do you know there isn't an omnipotent unicorn" or something along those lines, but typically the arguments that are presented for "God" are actually for an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent being, not necessarily an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent "X" (like a cat).

God is a being that is not a unicorn or a cat or a dog, but is something that is incomprehensible and, as you put it, boundless.

So it's useless to say if there is an omnipotent cat creator, because that's basically taking the idea of God and then defining it into something that is, by its very nature, limited. God is simply a term that we apply to a boundless being. We could have given this being a different term (such as Zaxyro, I don't know, I just made that up), but it's most certainly not what we call a cat or a unicorn.

Did I understand your post correctly or did I miss the point? I wanted to know because this is actually something I've thought about quite often, and so when I saw you posting it, I wanted to add on to what you said (even if I was repetitive ... very repetitive).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:26:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:58:08 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/15/2014 8:30:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
For instance, a boundless cat is not a coherent concept, since this implies that it can't be a dog (which implies that it is bounded). So we're not even really talking about a cat.

I think I understand what you mean.

When people say "God," they are talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (though it feels wrong to define a boundless being). People retort by saying, "How do you know there isn't an omnipotent unicorn" or something along those lines, but typically the arguments that are presented for "God" are actually for an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent being, not necessarily an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent "X" (like a cat).

God is a being that is not a unicorn or a cat or a dog, but is something that is incomprehensible and, as you put it, boundless.

So it's useless to say if there is an omnipotent cat creator, because that's basically taking the idea of God and then defining it into something that is, by its very nature, limited. God is simply a term that we apply to a boundless being. We could have given this being a different term (such as Zaxyro, I don't know, I just made that up), but it's most certainly not what we call a cat or a unicorn.

Did I understand your post correctly or did I miss the point? I wanted to know because this is actually something I've thought about quite often, and so when I saw you posting it, I wanted to add on to what you said (even if I was repetitive ... very repetitive).

You got it. However, God is not incomprehensible like you said. While we cannot know everything God knows, we can logically induce certain attributes that it must possess in order to exist. Implied by boundlessness is coherent self-determination, which implies O4 attributes.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:34:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:26:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

You got it. However, God is not incomprehensible like you said. While we cannot know everything God knows, we can logically induce certain attributes that it must possess in order to exist. Implied by boundlessness is coherent self-determination, which implies O4 attributes.

Yeah, I didn't mean incomprehensible in that sense. For example, I recognize we can know certain attributes of God, but I don't believe we can fully understand those attributes and what they mean, or that we can fully understand God's nature.

For how can an infinite thing be understood and remain within a finite mind?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:34:48 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/16/2014 11:26:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

You got it. However, God is not incomprehensible like you said. While we cannot know everything God knows, we can logically induce certain attributes that it must possess in order to exist. Implied by boundlessness is coherent self-determination, which implies O4 attributes.

Yeah, I didn't mean incomprehensible in that sense. For example, I recognize we can know certain attributes of God, but I don't believe we can fully understand those attributes and what they mean, or that we can fully understand God's nature.

For how can an infinite thing be understood and remain within a finite mind?

Reality is essentially the mind of God. In order to perfectly model reality - that is, to know the mind of God, we would need to take into account our model, and our new model would need to take into account the new model, etc. This implies that a complete model of reality can exist only by taking control of the thing to be known. That is, where what exists coincides with what is known. Since we are not God, but only parts thereof, this is beyond our reach even in principle.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 8:10:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

From that which I gather, he's using the term necessary existence to mean essential being. A cat must be, in order to exist; but, existence is not necessarily a cat. In saying essential being is a cat, you are defining it; you are giving it limits; you are saying it's this, but it's not that.

However, even though I believe essential being is not bound, it is not bound, in as much as being unbounded has meaning.


Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

I think you've missed it, altogether. Yet, I could be wrong. I believe he's saying denying essential being is unbounded is a contradiction; however, contradictions are essential, to meaning. In other words, that which is and that which isn't is, by definition, a contradiction; however, that which is must be that which isn't, in order for that which is and that which isn't to make sense.


So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.

All things material are not, necessarily, a unicorn.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

Boundlessness and necessary existence are one and the same (that is, inseparable). If X necessarily exists, then it is unrestricted by anything external to it. Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist). This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist. Any bounds placed on it are necessarily self-restrictions.


Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

A materialistically necessary unicorn is a contradictory concept.



So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 11:39:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What people often don't realize is that denying the existence of something isn't something that can be taken for granted. When you deny something's existence, you are implicitly claiming that there exists constraint (constraint external to the thing in question, since it doesn't exist) which prevents it from existing. However, God's definition doesn't allow for such an interpretation. That is, when you deny the existence of "God", you aren't denying the existence of God, but something that is bound by something external it (which doesn't fit the definition of God).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 8:17:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

Boundlessness and necessary existence are one and the same (that is, inseparable).

Don't buy it.

If X necessarily exists, then it is unrestricted by anything external to it.

Don't buy it. Bare assertion.

Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist).

Equivocation. By materialistically necessary, I simply mean existing in every possible world with a material reality. Whether this thing is caused by anything else or not is another issue all together.

This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist.

I see no reason why something cannot be necessary, but not boundless.

Any bounds placed on it are necessarily self-restrictions.



Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

A materialistically necessary unicorn is a contradictory concept.

No it is not. It is completely coherent.




So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 8:21:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

Boundlessness and necessary existence are one and the same (that is, inseparable). If X necessarily exists, then it is unrestricted by anything external to it. Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist). This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist. Any bounds placed on it are necessarily self-restrictions.


Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

A materialistically necessary unicorn is a contradictory concept.



So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.

Also, take the law of non-contradiction. That is necessary, but this law isn't boundless, it cannot strike me with lightning right now lol So it is easy to come up with examples of necessary things that aren't boundless.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:19:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 8:17:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist).

Equivocation. By materialistically necessary, I simply mean existing in every possible world with a material reality. Whether this thing is caused by anything else or not is another issue all together.

By defining it as such, you are implying that there is nothing even in principle which could prevent it from existing in all material worlds. But this necessitates the existence of something which could enforce this requirement. Now, this something cannot be bound by anything, because then how could it guarantee anything absolutely? Either the unicorn is this something, in which case it's not (since that implies it can't be other things), or we must appeal to something else. If we appeal to something else, we can't say the unicon must exist either, since that implies the being can't make up its own mind.

This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist.

I see no reason why something cannot be necessary, but not boundless.


You need to think about it more.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:19:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 8:21:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

Boundlessness and necessary existence are one and the same (that is, inseparable). If X necessarily exists, then it is unrestricted by anything external to it. Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist). This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist. Any bounds placed on it are necessarily self-restrictions.


Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

A materialistically necessary unicorn is a contradictory concept.



So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.

Also, take the law of non-contradiction. That is necessary, but this law isn't boundless, it cannot strike me with lightning right now lol So it is easy to come up with examples of necessary things that aren't boundless.

The law of non-contradiction simply means that things which exist must conform to logic (and logic is the theory of truth i.e. what exists). This law essentially is existence, and existence is God.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 8:20:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If this is your logical basis for God, then it is weak. I just proved a unicorn exists in the same fashion lol

Except not.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 11:04:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:19:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2014 8:21:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2014 12:39:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/15/2014 7:41:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/15/2014 3:08:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:46:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, denying the existence of something is predicated on the idea that it does not necessarily exist, which is predicated on the idea that it is externally restricted. Since God is boundless by definition, this is a contradiction.

What about a materialistically necessary unicorn? This is a unicorn that necessarily exists in every possible world with a material reality. To deny it would be a contradiction, because the real world is a world with a material reality (assuming Idealism is false).

Implied by necessary existence is boundlessness.

False. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, that doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness. That would be like saying that because a doughnut implies food, that food implies a doughnut, or that because lemonade implies liquid, that liquid implies lemonade.

Boundlessness and necessary existence are one and the same (that is, inseparable). If X necessarily exists, then it is unrestricted by anything external to it. Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist). This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist. Any bounds placed on it are necessarily self-restrictions.


Denying this merely leads to a contradiction. Whereas I acknowledge this with God, you don't.

Denying the unicorn that is materialistically necessary is a contradiction. Does that mean it exists? lol

A materialistically necessary unicorn is a contradictory concept.



So either such a being is synonymous with God (in which case calling it a unicorn is inaccurate, since that implies it can't be other things), or it is simply incoherent.

False dichotomy. The unicorn is materialistically necessary, and exists in every possible world with a material world.

Also, take the law of non-contradiction. That is necessary, but this law isn't boundless, it cannot strike me with lightning right now lol So it is easy to come up with examples of necessary things that aren't boundless.

The law of non-contradiction simply means that things which exist must conform to logic (and logic is the theory of truth i.e. what exists). This law essentially is existence, and existence is God.

The law of noncontradiction says a truth cannot be false, at once; in other words, that which is cannot be that which isn't, simultaneously. However, truth has no meaning, apart from falsehood; and that which is is defined by that which isn't. In thinking something is true, we are at once thinking it is not false; in seeing something, we are confronted with its opposite. Truth has no meaning, all its own; it cannot stand alone. Truth and falsehood are one; they are inseparable; one defines the other; one gives the other meaning.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 8:28:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:19:03 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/17/2014 8:17:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 11:25:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Its existence is not contingent upon anything else (since if nothing else existed, it would still exist).

Equivocation. By materialistically necessary, I simply mean existing in every possible world with a material reality. Whether this thing is caused by anything else or not is another issue all together.


By defining it as such, you are implying that there is nothing even in principle which could prevent it from existing in all material worlds. But this necessitates the existence of something which could enforce this requirement.

It enforces itself by definition.

Now, this something cannot be bound by anything, because then how could it guarantee anything absolutely?

It only has to guarantee that one thing, nothing else, ergo, it doesn't need to be boundless.

Either the unicorn is this something, in which case it's not (since that implies it can't be other things), or we must appeal to something else. If we appeal to something else, we can't say the unicon must exist either, since that implies the being can't make up its own mind.


This implies that it is completely self-determinative i.e. in complete control of itself, for if it weren't, it wouldn't necessarily exist.

False, it can still be materialistically necessary regardless.


I see no reason why something cannot be necessary, but not boundless.


You need to think about it more.

I think you do, because you are engaged in a fallacy. Just because boundlessness entails necessity, doesn't mean necessity entails boundlessness.