The Black Vault

at1with0 wrote:As far as humans being a virus, well, I do not judge the importance of humanity as either supremely important or supremely insignificant.

I don't think you understood the context of what I said. If we are all just part of God, yet, as in the case of humans we war against one another... saying we are all part of the body of God reduces us to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus (or bacteria) cells.

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:As far as humans being a virus, well, I do not judge the importance of humanity as either supremely important or supremely insignificant.

I don't think you understood the context of what I said. If we are all just part of God, yet, as in the case of humans we war against one another... saying we are all part of the body of God reduces us to the equivalent of warring antibodies and virus (or bacteria) cells.

Taken a step further, unless somehow we are fighting to keep the body of the Creator alive while warring against one another inside it's body, our existence is reduced to mere trivial pointlessness. That may be aknowledged by you and ok by you, but, I feel that the constant triumph over adversity in each individual human life points to a higher purpose.

humphreys wrote:So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?

Silly to define God before proving it exists? No. That's how existence proofs go: you start by defining what you want to prove exists.

frrostedman wrote:Taken a step further, unless somehow we are fighting to keep the body of the Creator alive while warring against one another inside it's body, our existence is reduced to mere trivial pointlessness. That may be aknowledged by you and ok by you, but, I feel that the constant triumph over adversity in each individual human life points to a higher purpose.

Like I said, I neither consider humanity to be supremely important in the universe nor supremely insignificant. I don't judge that. Are you suggesting that God isn't the totality of all that exists? If it is less than the totality, then God is not omnipresent. And there isn't anything beyond the totality either.

at1with0 wrote:

humphreys wrote:So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?

Silly to define God before proving it exists? No. That's how existence proofs go: you start by defining what you want to prove exists.

frrostedman wrote:Taken a step further, unless somehow we are fighting to keep the body of the Creator alive while warring against one another inside it's body, our existence is reduced to mere trivial pointlessness. That may be aknowledged by you and ok by you, but, I feel that the constant triumph over adversity in each individual human life points to a higher purpose.

Like I said, I neither consider humanity to be supremely important in the universe nor supremely insignificant. I don't judge that. Are you suggesting that God isn't the totality of all that exists? If it is less than the totality, then God is not omnipresent. And there isn't anything beyond the totality either.

Omnipresence is not defined that way by any Christian that I'm aware of. God's omnipresence to a Christian merely means that He is watching and seeing all that we do, no matter where we are. Admittedly without the bible to completely back me up on this, I also believe that God's omnipresence is made possible by ever-watching angels who watch all of us and report to Him. The bible doesn't go far enough in its explanation to refute or support that belief so it boils down to opinion.

Many times in the Old Testament, God's "presence" often ends up being an angelic representative of God and not God Himself. For example, an angel of God led the Hebrews in their Exodus out of Egypt. Apart from the time God took human form (Jesus, Melchizadek), it's primarily been the Spirit of God or an angelic representative of God that has been witnessed and written about.

My opinion is that God resides outside this universe and outside this dimension, which would obviously rule out the possibility of this universe or anything in it being a literal part of the Creator.

I guess I define omnipresence differently.

humphreys wrote:

khanster wrote:I find that the ontological argument is pretty solid but it is difficult for many people to comprehend and thus it is not a universally acceptable proof.

It boils down to a simple realization.

It is possible for God to exist.

If it is possible for God to exist then God cannot not-exist.

Therefore God exists.

Ignoring the issues with defining "God", let's just assume I accept step 1, why does something that can exist have to exist?

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality?

It is logically possible for a 1000 headed dragon to exist, does that mean that a 1000 headed dragon must exist, and therefore does exist?

And you think I've been drinking!

greeney2 wrote:However you did say in reply you are a strong Atheist, and Humphrey stated a weak athiest just does not believe, and also has no proof, where a strong Atheist presents proof of the non-existance of God. Is that true, a strong Atheist can proove God does not exist, since a weak Atheist claim he can not?

"Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called "gnostic atheism" because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist."

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismques ... g_weak.htm

I deny the existence of the "Biblical God," and also any "omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent God." But I do not deny the existence of "any gods at all." For instance, if an alien race created us, you could call them our gods. Or if a race in another dimension created this universe (as I stated previously) you could call them our gods.

The most obvious proof that the "Biblical God" does not exist is the fact that modern humans have existed for much more than 6,000 years. That's all the proof anyone should need, but obviously many people deny the facts.

The omnipotence paradox states that:

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent, as the rock was not heavy enough; if he could not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with."

Omnipotence combined with omniscience creates another paradox:

"Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?" If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent."

As far as omnipresence goes...

The "omnipresent God" was invented at a time when humans thought that Earth was all there was -- it was flat, and was comprised of just several continents. For such a finite space, such a being is easy to conceive. But it's ridiculous to think that a "God" can exist at all locations at once in this vast cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies...unless this universe were some sort of computer program (or hologram), and even if so, the actual creator of it wouldn't be omnipresent, just the program would.

Of course, I know that's not absolute proof of non-omnipresence...that's just my take on it. You could call it logical proof.

The catch with defining a limitless being is that existence is defined from within itself in terms of limitation. To be This is to not-be That.

In that sense, existence as we know it could be called intrinsically dualistic. Even a fundamental logical formulation of existence/non-existence is, in essence, a form of organizational cognizance. The knower cannot be totally separated from the known.

Unity is definitively inclusive of separation. There must be a totality of existence to necessarily subsume conceptual contrast in order for existence to be organized into discrete perceivables.

The ultimate context in which all else is arbitrarily-arranged content may itself be an approximate information-state eluding its own mechanism of actualization.

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:

khanster wrote:I find that the ontological argument is pretty solid but it is difficult for many people to comprehend and thus it is not a universally acceptable proof.

It boils down to a simple realization.

It is possible for God to exist.

If it is possible for God to exist then God cannot not-exist.

Therefore God exists.

Ignoring the issues with defining "God", let's just assume I accept step 1, why does something that can exist have to exist?

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality?

It is logically possible for a 1000 headed dragon to exist, does that mean that a 1000 headed dragon must exist, and therefore does exist?

And you think I've been drinking!

Answer the question then.

Why is it not logically possible for something to exist, and yet not exist in actuality? I doubt you even understand the question.

at1with0 wrote:

humphreys wrote:So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?

Silly to define God before proving it exists? No. That's how existence proofs go: you start by defining what you want to prove exists.

But you've basically defined God as "existence", so yes it seems pretty silly to write a proof stating that existence exists.