How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?

[Kevin Solway]

Anything that exists is part of existence.

Stop right there. How can you have existence without nonexistence?

If "nonexistence" exists then it is part of existence. And if it doesn't exist then there's no point talking about it, because it doesn't exist.

I can define nonexistence as that which does not belong to the set of things that exist.

That would be a very weird definition of existence - to purposely exclude particular things from having any existence.

That would be like me saying that everything exists except you.

And anyway, you don't even have a sound definition of existence.

Things exist if they can be contrasted with other things.

I can conceive of there being something outside of the lightcone of any event - in the "elsewhere." Yet I can by definition never verify its existence.

If you can discern a boundary to "elsewhere" then "elsewhere" exists.

So: does the thing in the elsewhere exist?

If you can discern a thing in elsewhere, then it exists.

How did the genes get there in the first place?

Genes are just collections of atoms. Those collections evolved in the same way that everything else does - ie, if they are able to reproduce themselves then they continue.

No wait, don't tell me, there isn't anything you don't understand fully, correct?

I understand fully that all things are caused, just in the same way that I understand that all magic tricks are not really magic but are produced by ordinary cause and effect.

So how do you account for life?

"Life" is just a label. We are no more than a particular pattern of non-life.

[brokenhead]

I've noticed that you write about me from the very being. I though it was my so-called illness or my mind playing tricks on me, but it isn't... You're all really a bunch of idiots who've failed at life.

I'm an idiot and a failure? Why, because I can read? Go over to the "douchebag" thread.

[brokenhead]

If "nonexistence" exists then it is part of existence

Things exist if they can be contrasted with other things.

So how can existence exist if nonexistence does not?

If you can discern a thing in elsewhere, then it exists.

I'm not discerning it, I am simply conceiving it

Genes are just collections of atoms. Those collections evolved in the same way that everything else does - ie, if they are able to reproduce themselves then they continue.

Just a collection of atoms? So why do those collections reproduce and others do not?

"Life" is just a label. We are no more than a particular pattern of non-life.

A label for what? And don't say "living things" or I swear I'll hunt you down like a jackrabbit.

[Kevin Solway]

So how can existence exist if nonexistence does not?

Existence doesn't exist. I covered that above. It is Infinite. It has no boundaries.

If you can discern a thing in elsewhere, then it exists.

I'm not discerning it, I am simply conceiving it

That's a kind of discerning.

Genes are just collections of atoms. Those collections evolved in the same way that everything else does - ie, if they are able to reproduce themselves then they continue.

Just a collection of atoms? So why do those collections reproduce and others do not?

Because that is what that particular pattern of atoms does.

"Life" is just a label. We are no more than a particular pattern of non-life.

A label for what?

Mostly, a label for things that move around and reproduce.

[brokenhead]

Holy shit, Kevin, you are hopeless.
You said existence requires a contrast to something else.

Things exist if they can be contrasted with other things.

What, then? If existence includes everything, it has nothing it can be contrasted to.

You're disappointing me here. You are being contradictory and you won't see it. You can't see it. You keep stating the same things over and over.

[Dan Rowden]

"Existence" = the totality of things said to exist. The set of all that things that "blather" called "Blatherince" does not itself, "blather". Think of what Kevin is saying in that kind of sense.

[sulochanosho]

When brokenhead says,

What, then? If existence includes everything, it has nothing it can be contrasted to.

You're disappointing me here. You are being contradictory and you won't see it. You can't see it. You keep stating the same things over and over.

there we can see the futility of proving the existence of GOD by any concrete evidence or rational means.

[Kevin Solway]

Things exist if they can be contrasted with other things.

What, then? If existence includes everything, it has nothing it can be contrasted to.

That's right, and that's precisely why the All (all things which exist) is not a thing, and can't be said to exist.

[brokenhead]

That's right, and that's precisely why the All (all things which exist) is not a thing, and can't be said to exist.

Forgive me for being thick, but isn't what you just said logically absurd?

[Dan Rowden]

You're forgiven.

[Kevin Solway]

Forgive me for being thick, but isn't what you just said logically absurd?

What I said is perfectly logical.

[brokenhead]

You are tip-toeing around some logical singularity in your minds which it must have taken vast effort to isolate and identify, and I am telling you it's not there. It's a fear. It's the ultimate doubt and negation. All things that exist can't be said to exist. Is this a joke that I don't get?

[average]

All things that exist can't be said to exist. Is this a joke that I don't get?

All things that exist, exist. By definition...

But thats not the issue here, its about the notion of the Everything, not every thing.

It has to do with how definitions work, the notion of a set, and what it actually means to exist.

Three things you haven't really given any thought. Right?

[brokenhead]

You're forgiven.

Your forebearance touches me. ;)

[brokenhead]

It has to do with how definitions work, the notion of a set, and what it actually means to exist.

Three things you haven't really given any thought. Right?

Wrong.

[brokenhead]

It has to do with how definitions work, the notion of a set, and what it actually means to exist.

Three things you haven't really given any thought. Right?

Wrong.

BTW, your grammar sucks.

[average]

It has to do with how definitions work, the notion of a set, and what it actually means to exist.

Three things you haven't really given any thought. Right?

Wrong.

Well then, what are you confused about?

whats wrong with my grammar lol?

[Kevin Solway]

All things that exist can't be said to exist. Is this a joke that I don't get?

Can you understand how the All is not a thing, and is not bounded?

[brokenhead]

Well then, what are you confused about?

I don't think I'm the one who is confused.

whats wrong with my grammar lol?

Three things you haven't really given any thought.

could have read "Three things to which..."

[brokenhead]

Can you understand how the All is not a thing, and is not bounded?

Yes I understand that.

[Kevin Solway]

Can you understand how the All is not a thing, and is not bounded?

Yes I understand that.

So, since it has nothing with which it can be contrasted, it cannot be said to exist. That is perfectly logical, is it not? (given our previous definition of what it means to exist)

[brokenhead]

Remember, I am not trying to prove God exists.
What I am trying to do at the moment is understand your refusal to entertain the idea of going with empirical evidence.
So:
If existence doesn't exist, what is it? And do you include thoughts and abstractions in things that exist? If you are saying that upon examination, "existence" is a logically meaningless concept, why even discuss it?

[brokenhead]

And you know, you kind of skimmed over my protest about why some groups of atoms seek to reproduce and why others do not.
At what point of complexity of organization does a collection of atoms seek to duplicate its own organization? And why? What is "causing" it? What gets it past the turning point? And how do you measure complexity?

If life is just a struggle of groups of atoms to reproduce, why are they doing it? The natural world spontanteously violates one of its own principals, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Life began as single cell organisms. And single cell organisms still exist. Could not the groups of atoms have satisfied this somehow "uncaused" mandate to reproduce without inventing ever more complex arrangements which violate physical laws?

[Kevin Solway]

If existence doesn't exist, what is it?

Everything.

And do you include thoughts and abstractions in things that exist?

Yes.

If you are saying that upon examination, "existence" is a logically meaningless concept, why even discuss it?

I'm not saying it's meaningless, but that it cannot possibly have been created.

What I am trying to do at the moment is understand your refusal to entertain the idea of going with empirical evidence.

If there is any empirical evidence that we were created by some kind of alien being (good or evil), then I'm perfectly open to the idea.

why some groups of atoms seek to reproduce and why others do not.

I answered that. They reproduce because that's what those particular patterns of atoms do. Different patterns of atoms do different things.

At what point of complexity of organization does a collection of atoms seek to duplicate its own organization?

Small groups of atoms don't "seek" anything. But they are duplicated at whatever point they are duplicated.

What is "causing" it?

Whatever factors result in the duplication. For example, enough raw materials, etc.

What gets it past the turning point?

Whatever factor results in a duplication taking place (eg, raw materials).

And how do you measure complexity?

I don't know. Why would you want to?

If life is just a struggle of groups of atoms to reproduce, why are they doing it?

These groups of atoms are not "struggling" - they are just being what they are. They don't have any choice.

The natural world spontanteously violates one of its own principals, the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't apply in local areas.

Life began as single cell organisms.

Cells are very complex things. There was a lot that went on before cells arose.

And single cell organisms still exist. Could not the groups of atoms have satisfied this somehow "uncaused" mandate to reproduce

If there is such a thing as a "mandate to reproduce", then it will have been caused, because all things are caused. But most things don't reproduce, so reproduction isn't mandated for most things.

without inventing ever more complex arrangements which violate physical laws?

It sounds like you've been brainwashed by the creationists.

[brokenhead]

You don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't apply in local areas.

I understand it very well. It applies everywhere, without exception, at all times. What you just said about local areas makes no sense to me and I studied this material at a graduate level in the area of physics. In fact, the Second Law and Schroedinger's equation are the two most sacrosanct tenets of Western Science.

To deny the patently obvious qualitative difference between a living thing and a dead thing is a decision that you have made and one which is baffling. I have no agenda in my world-view. I have stripped my thinking down as far as I could and proceeded from there with one thing as a guide: Does an assertion make sense? To me, this is not a case of having been "brainwashed." You sound brainwashed, in fact: washed clean of even the bare necessity of deciding if something makes sense or not.

You must realize how exasperating your point of view is. Not just to me, but inherently. It is motivated by more than sheer intellectual honesty - which I am not questioning that you have. You are making prodigious leaps of denial and see my world-view as suspect because I have made a small leap of faith.