From God's Inexistence It Follows God's Existence

[irichc]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[vicente]

That was "truely" bizarre, and both untrue and irrational. Actually, one of the best proofs there is no god is that he is designated a creator,...thus, since the TRUTH is that there is no time, there is no creator or god.

Quantum Cosmologically speaking, Light is the proof that no god exists.

Philosophically, I like the following:
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

:)

[todd]

Why do we keep trying to demonstrate the obvious?
Everyone of us has a different indemonstrable one.
Why do we need do show the other one he's wrong?
Why don't we listen, trust his mind, and try to comprehend his vision?
Why do we keep trying to 'demonstrate' that God exist or not exist?
When someone is presenting his theory, we should accept his postulates and, criticize only the eventual mistakes in his own logic, because... 'errare humanum est' Nobody forces you to adopt his ideas...
I understand why we are holding on our own postulates, but I do not understand why we need to deny the other's.
Does anybody know with certainty any absolute referential? I don't think so, I think everyone of us is building a different one in his own mind.

[vicente]

Does anybody know with certainty any absolute referential?

Light is a proof that no god, as defined by any english language dictionary, exists,...it's irrefutable, thus an absolute referential. This isn't my idea, or concept.

For some other absolute referentials, ponder on these following oxymorons, and understand why they are oxymorons:

Present Time
real energy
Individual Wholeness
Religious Tolerance
healthy competition
Transcendental God
Unconditional belief
Here and Now
Natural theology
Compassionate Conservative

[...]

I understand why we are holding on our own postulates, but I do not understand why we need to deny the other's.

..look to your own motivations for that answer todd, from earlier posts you don't seem to mind denying other's their postulates...

Does anybody know with certainty any absolute referential? I don't think so, I think everyone of us is building a different one in his own mind.

..how about the space in which that question is asked? How about the ability that facilitates asking that question? What about light?

[Nick_A]

Irichc

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God

The assumption here is that it is a straight line of truths. As I understand it, there is a basic natural laws as to why tings turn in circles and spirals and there are no straight lines in nature. The book of Ecclesiastes explains this well and why this process essentially makes life meaningless.;

However if this continual turning is part of a cosmos, from which there are several, then this whole system could have been designed by the creator. The line of truths may not be connected to the cycles within a cosmos but how the cosmoses themselves are connected.

Todd

I understand why we are holding on our own postulates, but I do not understand why we need to deny the other's.
Does anybody know with certainty any absolute referential? I don't think so, I think everyone of us is building a different one in his own mind.

The fact that we try to build it is the source of the trouble. We cannot verify anything yet we have callings that assure us that something is there.

So the normal gradual process of inner personal verification becomes replaced by external verification meaning others must believe you to be right which convinces you that you're right.

You must convince them you are right so they can salute you and tell you that you are right which verifies the fact that you are right. The best way to accomplish this is to hit the other over the head enough times with a "peace" sign until they've seen the light and become a believer in your way.

We can never appreciate the higher from our level of understanding. The results of these attempts are similar to the building of the Tower of Babel. Because of a faulty foundation, it must crumble. It never seems to dawn on us that we need to develop the ability to understand. This knowledge is received from above rather than learned through our reason.

vicente

Individual Wholeness

This may not be an oxymoron. The reason it is not could be related to the need for creation.

Here and Now

When and where else can something be other than here and now? I know that this is absurd in the concept of linear time but not so in regards the quality of the moment itself which doesn't exist for linear time but for a different appreciation of time which helps to determine the quality of the moment itself in relation to the distance from the creator..

[vicente]

Individual Wholeness

This may not be an oxymoron. The reason it is not could be related to the need for creation.

Here and Now

When and where else can something be other than here and now? I know that this is absurd in the concept of linear time but not so in regards the quality of the moment itself which doesn't exist for linear time but for a different appreciation of time which helps to determine the quality of the moment itself in relation to the distance from the creator..

Individual Wholeness. Although the individual perceives a need for progeny, Wholeness, which is realized upon the dissolution of opposites and the individual, does not.

Here and Now. To have a 'here' there must be a 'there',...thus, both concepts are in the past. There is no past in the Now, there the Now cannot contain a here. Similarily, a condition cannot enter the Unconditional and have the Unconditional remain Unconditional.

For most, while dreaming, they think the dream is real. For those who think the 'here' is in the present, there is an attachment to perception.

Perception cannot experience the world which it thinks surrounds it, but only the world which surrounded it.

:)

[todd]

So the normal gradual process of inner personal verification becomes replaced by external verification meaning others must believe you to be right which convinces you that you're right.

You must convince them you are right so they can salute you and tell you that you are right which verifies the fact that you are right

So, let's sign up for democracy in the world of ideas!
If you'd have seen the 'light' and the whole world would say you're crazy, would you go to psychiatrist and deny the 'light' you've seen?

[sonrisa]

Vicente, how does the existence of light deny the existence of god? Did not god say, "Let there be light?"

did the light kill him/her?

[Nick_A]

Vicente

Individual Wholeness. Although the individual perceives a need for progeny, Wholeness, which is realized upon the dissolution of opposites and the individual, does not.

I'm beginning to see why we appreciate this so differently. You see existence in terms of opposites or duality and I see existence in gradations of the three aspects or forces of the Holy Trinity.

The dissolution of opposites means lack of existence. the third force, the force of reconciliation, or the "Holy Spirit" if you will, reconciles duality and opposites, instead of dissolution, are reconciled into creation. All the things that make up creation are formed from the blending of different qualities of the essential three forces: Active, Passive, and reconciling.

This makes for a big difference between "nothing" which is the absence of the Holy Spirit, and no-thing which is actually every-thing in its potential as blendings of the three forces.

Here and Now. To have a 'here' there must be a 'there',...thus, both concepts are in the past. There is no past in the Now, there the Now cannot contain a here. Similarily, a condition cannot enter the Unconditional and have the Unconditional remain Unconditional.

Here doesn't require a there. Here is existence while not here is the absence of existence which is not "there".

Here may be in the past, the future and the present if these three aspects are considered as part of "now". Who is to say that the future has not already occurred?

Perceptions is perception. How we interpret it is something else.

Todd

If you'd have seen the 'light' and the whole world would say you're crazy, would you go to psychiatrist and deny the 'light' you've seen?

Some may. There are those that really understand what the psychiatrists do not and no amount of therapy will destroy them. Their presence and situation was once described by Meister Eckhart in an extraordinary quote in the sermon "Young Man, Arise":

"Pity them my children, they are from home and no one knows them. Let those in quest of God be careful lest appearances deceive them in these people who are peculiar and hard to place; no one rightly knows them but those in whom the same light shines."

[todd]

Fiat Lux = Italian car in the 60-70th

[vicente]

Did not god say, "Let there be light?"

sonrisa,...yes, but not really.

According to the bible, the Elohim said let there be light. To clarify this "kind of light" we could skip to the last written book in the NT, the lare 2nd Century apology 1John,..."god is light and in him is no darkness". That is the light od duality, not the Light which is the fulcrum of duality.

The word ELOHIM (plural, meaning gods) appear 2570 times in the OT. The singular version El (appears 226 times) and Eloah (57 times, 41 of which in Job).
Modern scholars say its etymology has not thus far been satisfactory explained. However, christian revisionists claim that ELOHIM is really singular because it is near singular verbs.
Here's a few examples for you to judge:
Gen 1:26 "And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness"
Gen 3:22 " And ELOHIM said, behold, the man is become as one of US".
Gen 11:7 "let US go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech".

The first time a singular god is mentioned in the Bible is in Exo 2.

[vicente]

You see existence in terms of opposites or duality and I see existence in gradations of the three aspects or forces of the Holy Trinity.

I don't disagree that duality is actually a trinity,...as in Maya Cosmology, there are three aspects of god 1.

The dissolution of duality, or the three aspects of perception, is the threshold to awake from the dream. Unfortunately, most of those in the dream do not realize the dream is merely a dream and not real, nor existence.

Nick_A,...your reasoning is simply too intellectual, that is, sciential or in the head, verses sapiential or from the Heart. The so-called creation or three aspects of force/motion that project the dream that the dreamers perceive as existence, is not of Source, nor Reality.

The absolute truth is, as long as you identify with "here" you are not in the Now. I can understand that your perception refuses to acknowledge that the you, you think you are, is not you, nor does it exist.

Of course, the you you think you are is not going to accept that,...so I challenge you, the you that you think you are, to have a thought in the Now. As such a feat is impossible, the you you think you are will either go mad (which it already is anyway), or wake up.

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

:)

[Nick_A]

vicente

I would say you are to trusting of the heart. &You need a certain quality of reason to distinguish between the quality and origin of emotions. This is what is meant in this Biblical passage:




1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

There is a difference between between emotions and feelings and it is through the intellect that they can be experienced for what they are. Of course this is a much higher quality of intellect that makes use of a high quality of attention.

There is an old Christian idea of Apatheia introduced by Evagrius Ponticus which means freedom from emotions.

Emotion is a difficult subject and the last thing a person should do is blindly trust the sufferings and illusions of emotions.

It takes real effort to become free of these emotions and not justify ourselves through them for the illusion of this "peace".

There is a difference between being identified with here and the observation of here from a perspective that is closer to "now". I've been around these things long enough to know that Nick_A is not "I". Real thought is the attempt to experience this difference in levels.

Our difference is that you do not accept that the universe is material and as such exists at different degrees of "being". From what you describe, it seems that you believe that existence is an illusion as is materiality. It may be a distorted illusion for us but I believe there is a reality that is being distorted.

So where I see scale and relativity of consciousness, it seems you see duality and nothingness. Now that's a real difference in perspective. :)

[agronrama]

We only know what science tells us, but science never has made any progress in issue whether god does or does not exist, it is pointless to discus it.

[todd]

We only know what science tells us, but science never has made any progress in issue whether god does or does not exist, it is pointless to discus it.

One could say as well that we only know what God wants us to know... so again it is pointless to discuss.
Discussing things that we already know is also pointless.
So the conclusion is...why discuss anything? :think:
I think we should discuss about that... :D