Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #1

Post by Veridican »

The Veridican Argument for the Existence of God


Preamble and Necessary Stipulations

The first thing you must do is define what God is because if you go looking for a false notion of God, you won't find it. A false god truly does not exist, so there is no proof of it.

One must get past the belief of (and need for) a God that is like a human figure of a man sitting on a large throne in an astral place called heaven. Certainly, God could appear that way in a "vision", but that vision would be completely subjective to the one having it--just like a burning bush was to Moses (presumably).

For this argument, God is defined as the monistic entity. That means He is the only thing that is real, and all other things that seem to exist are modalities of his substance. Do not confuse this with pantheism. Pantheism states that God is the universe. Monism states that the universe is of the substance of God. Monistically speaking, therefore, the universe is God, but God is not just the universe. God is that which is the only real thing that exists, that has ever existed, that will always exist.

Secondly, don't go looking for a physical sign of God's existence; it doesn't work that way. If God exists as the monistic entity, then God necessarily is of a higher order of existence than the physical world. Thus, proof is going to have to be of a higher order because the "physical" proof of God is, after all, the entire physical universe. To ask for physical proof of God is like standing in a hundred acres of trees and asking for proof of the forest.

The next step is to move your thoughts to that higher order of thinking. Contemplate "nothingness." By that, I mean true nothingness. Imagine nothing exists--not even you as the imaginer of it. This can't be done ordinarily, of course, which is why you must use higher thought to envision it, like when we try to imagine a fourth dimension or space-time. Chances are that as you contemplate it, you will only glimpse it in your mind. But that will be enough to follow this argument.

Therefore:

Argument Axioms

Axiom #1: Nothingness is an eternal state.

If there is a state of nothingness, there will always be and has always been a state of nothingness. To imagine something popping into existence from nothingness requires "magical thinking," which isn't rational, but even if it were rational, true nothingness would not have existed in the first place. There would have always been the magic that popped something into existence. So, if there was ever nothingness--there would still only be nothingness.


Axiom #2: Something exists.

The universe with all its forces and matter exists. This does not need any further proof.


Axiom #3: If something exists, then something has always existed.

For if there was a time when there was nothing before there was something, then nothingness would still exist because nothingness is necessarily eternal (see axiom #1).


Axiom #4: If something exists, it is the only thing that has ever existed.

For if there were two things wholly separate from each other, then between those two things would be nothing--and if nothingness exists anywhere at any time, it is eternal.


Axiom #5: Something and nothing cannot exist together.

Either there is one thing that has always existed, or there is nothingness that has always existed. And if there is a state of nothingness of any size or shape, then it existed before something. For once something exists, it is the only thing that exists. Keep in mind that "something" does not float in a sea of "nothingness" There is no "outside" of something. There is not that which exists and that which does not exist. There is only one or the other, and as we know, there is something that exists (Axiom #2).


Axiom #6: The one thing that exists has consciousness as an attribute.

It may have many other attributes as well. It may have infinite attributes or at least all the attributes that can exist. But one of those attributes is consciousness. We know this because we are conscious, and we are necessarily part of the one thing that exists.


Conclusion:

If nothingness was ever a state of being, it would have never changed from that state. However, because something does exist, it is the one thing that does exist and must have always existed. That one substance that exists is minimally a conscious entity. Therefore, the one thing that has existed eternally, and is conscious, is what we call "God."

--The End--

NOTE: This argument was originally created by Rev. Edward J. Gordon on October 10, 2018.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #61

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:58 am You keep thinking that Zeus or Osiris couldn't be God, but you're not explaining why.
Zeus and Osiris are interpretations of God, as is Jesus Christ as we find him in the Gospels for that matter. But Jesus Christ is the true revelation.
Make it untrue for himself, or untrue for that person?

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
---George Orwell, 1984
Untrue for you. God controls your mind, whether you think He does or not (no pun intended).
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #62

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Veridican in post #61
Zeus and Osiris are interpretations of God, as is Jesus Christ as we find him in the Gospels for that matter. But Jesus Christ is the true revelation.
You're still just stating this and not backing it up.
He could burn an innocent person in hell and at the same time make it untrue and not real that such a person is burning in hell.
If it was true to him but not to that person, it wouldn't be happening. If it was true for the person but not to him, he would be in denial.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
---Galileo

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #63

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:16 pm You're still just stating this and not backing it up.
Well, you're just going to live with the question, I suppose.
If it was true to him but not to that person, it wouldn't be happening. If it was true for the person but not to him, he would be in denial.
Whatever.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #64

Post by Bust Nak »

Veridican wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:26 am Axiom #1: Nothingness is an eternal state.

If there is a state of nothingness, there will always be and has always been a state of nothingness. To imagine something popping into existence from nothingness requires "magical thinking," which isn't rational, but even if it were rational, true nothingness would not have existed in the first place. There would have always been the magic that popped something into existence. So, if there was ever nothingness--there would still only be nothingness.
Sounds okay on its own, but is problematic in combination with a later premise, more to follow later...
Axiom #2: Something exists.

The universe with all its forces and matter exists. This does not need any further proof.
Granted.
Axiom #3: If something exists, then something has always existed.

For if there was a time when there was nothing before there was something, then nothingness would still exist because nothingness is necessarily eternal (see axiom #1).
Granted.
Axiom #4: If something exists, it is the only thing that has ever existed.

For if there were two things wholly separate from each other, then between those two things would be nothing--and if nothingness exists anywhere at any time, it is eternal.
Following from #1, this sounds like a non sequitur, So what if that nothingness is eternal? Why can't there be eternal nothingness between two distinct somethings?
Axiom #5: Something and nothing cannot exist together.

Either there is one thing that has always existed, or there is nothingness that has always existed. And if there is a state of nothingness of any size or shape, then it existed before something. For once something exists, it is the only thing that exists. Keep in mind that "something" does not float in a sea of "nothingness" There is no "outside" of something. There is not that which exists and that which does not exist. There is only one or the other, and as we know, there is something that exists (Axiom #2).
Again, why not two distinct something with nothing between them, all eternal, eliminating the question of "existing before" all together? This scenario does not violate your rule that something cannot popping into existence from nothingness, since all three are eternal.
Axiom #6: The one thing that exists has consciousness as an attribute.

It may have many other attributes as well. It may have infinite attributes or at least all the attributes that can exist. But one of those attributes is consciousness. We know this because we are conscious, and we are necessarily part of the one thing that exists.
Sounds like a Fallacy of composition along the lines of part of that something is conscious therefore the whole thing is conscious. A part of me is liquid, yet I am not liquid.

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #65

Post by Veridican »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 9:17 am
Veridican wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:26 am Axiom #4: If something exists, it is the only thing that has ever existed.

For if there were two things wholly separate from each other, then between those two things would be nothing--and if nothingness exists anywhere at any time, it is eternal.
Following from #1, this sounds like a non sequitur, So what if that nothingness is eternal? Why can't there be eternal nothingness between two distinct somethings?
A DISCUSSION ON AXIOM #4

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

[Axiom #4: If something exists, it is the only thing that has ever existed. For if there were two things wholly separate from each other, then between those two things would be nothing--and if nothingness exists anywhere at any time, it is eternal.]
---
Bust Nak wrote:
Following from #1, this sounds like a non sequitur, So what if that nothingness is eternal? Why can't there be eternal nothingness between two distinct somethings?
---
My Response:

First off, thank you for taking this argument seriously. It is rare, in groups, that I find it taken seriously. However, that is more because people can't understand it rather than any real philosophical objection.

And speaking of objections, I want to deal with your objection to axiom #4. I know you have others on 5 and 6 but owing to the complexity of the argument (a complexity which is actually more apparent than real), I want to narrow my response to this.

I understand that it sounds like a non-sequitur, but it's not, and certainly not because of Axiom #1. In Axiom #1, I merely state "if" nothingness existed. The argument is that "nothingness" has never been a real state, ever.

If it had ever been a real state, then it would have had to be the "only" state. Because for it to be a state, it could never be contingent on anything. But all of that is germane to the point at hand, because there has never been a state of "nothingness."

We know there has never been a state of nothingness because (per #2) we know that "something" exists.

But at this point, you have to extend your thinking and try to glimpse the higher concepts here (not to impugn your ability to do so in any way).

"Something" does not float in a sea of "Nothing."

For if it does, then it is a contingent thing. Its existence has to be explained, and it can't be without resorting to magical thinking--which we agree is absurd.

If "something" does not float in a sea of "nothing," then the "something" is the only thing there is.

So, you can't have two things. If you have two "somethings" then between them is "nothing," which is not logically possible. No matter how infinitesimal the line between them, there would still have to be a state that was neither the first thing nor the second thing, and that would have to be "nothing", and "nothing" cannot possibly be a real state.

If you're having problems visualizing this, you have to try to meditate on the concept of "nothing." I can show you some steps that help with that if you need me to.

Once you glimpse "nothingness," you will understand that there is no such thing. You will find that you are required in order to create the nothingness, and you then become the "something" and you are before the "nothing." And that is a model for the existence of God.

"Nothingness" can be a state. But it is not. Nevertheless, if it were, it would need no cause or be contingent on anything.

"Something" can be non-contingent, so long as it is the only thing that exists.

For if there are two "somethings" then they are contingent and must have come out of nothing, which is magical and absurd.

Okay, so what do you think? :-k
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #66

Post by Bust Nak »

Veridican wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 10:16 am And speaking of objections, I want to deal with your objection to axiom #4. I know you have others on 5 and 6, but owing to the complexity of the argument (a complexity which is actually more apparent than real), I want to narrow my response to this.
That's fine, there is plenty to discuss here already.
I understand that it sounds like a non-sequitur, but it's not, and certainly not because of Axiom #1. In Axiom #1, I merely state "if" nothingness existed. The argument is that "nothingness" has never been a real state, ever.
If it had ever been a real state, then it would have had to be the "only" state. Because for it to be a state, it could never be contingent on anything.
Why would the state of nothingness not being contingent imply it has to be the only state, in other words, why can't two necessary states exist along side each other? While we are here, it's not entirely clear why nothingness can't be contingent, I accept nothingness cannot cause something to appear, but why can't there be an eternal something, then from it spawns nothingness? Right at the end of this post, you seemed to be entertaining the idea that God can create nothingness.
But all of that is germane to the point at hand, because there has never been a state of "nothingness."
We know there has never been a state of nothingness because (per #2) we know that "something" exists.
We can only know this if nothingness cannot exist along side something existing. So this claim is still tired to showing that either there is state of something or a state of nothing but not both.
But at this point, you have to extend your thinking and try to glimpse the higher concepts here (not to impugn your ability to do so in any way). "Something" does not float in a sea of "Nothing." For if it does, then it is a contingent thing.
Not sure what the "it" (bolded) is referring to here, which would be the contingent thing, and what is it contingent on, if something exists along side nothingness? Is "something floating in the sea of nothing" the same concept as "something existing along side nothingness?"
If "something" does not float in a sea of "nothing," then...
Okay, the rest of that part seem to hinge on the above claims, so let me skip past this.
I can show you some steps that help with that if you need me to. Once you glimpse "nothingness," you will understand that there is no such thing. You will find that you are required in order to create the nothingness, and you then become the "something" and you are before the "nothing." And that is a model for the existence of God.
Wait a minute, lets not get ahead of ourselves, what's this about creating? All I spoke of, is something existing along side nothingness, I have yet to invoke any sort of coming into existence.
Okay, so what do you think?
I think a much simpler argument against the possibility of something existing along side nothingness is just to define them as antithesis of each other. Where nothingness is the absolute absence of anything, everywhere. Where the mere existence of anything, automatically invalidates the state of nothingness. But then you'd have a harder time with #4 where you invoke the idea of nothingness between two somethings.

User avatar
Veridican
Banned
Banned
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:36 pm
Location: Mississippi
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 26 times
Contact:

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #67

Post by Veridican »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 11:08 am Why would the state of nothingness not being contingent imply it has to be the only state, in other words, why can't two necessary states exist along side each other? While we are here, it's not entirely clear why nothingness can't be contingent, I accept nothingness cannot cause something to appear, but why can't there be an eternal something, then from it spawns nothingness? Right at the end of this post, you seemed to be entertaining the idea that God can create nothingness.
Again, I don't think you're comprehending what "nothingness" really means. And that's partly my fault because I keep referring to it like it was an object that exists. But "nothingness" is truly not-anything. So, it can't exist alongside "something." Because in such a scenario, "Something" is not juxtaposed to anything. It's not like looking at a planet floating alone in space. If there is "something"--it is truly the only thing there is, and it is ALL there is.

"Nothingness" is not empty space. "Nothingness" is the absence of all things, including anything that could observe it, or compare it, or sense it.

Is "something floating in the sea of nothing" the same concept as "something existing along side nothingness?"
Yes. I mean think about it: Nothingness is literally ...nothing. So, if there is "something" (anything at all) that "something" is necessarily the only thing there is. It's not floating in a sea of nothingness; it is not sitting beside a thing called "nothingness."

And this is why there can't be two things. Because between them, no matter how infinitesimal the space, would necessarily have to be "nothingness." But nothingness is not a possible state or field. For, if there ever had been nothing, nothing would have ever come from it. "Something" does not come from "nothing"--and "nothing" cannot be produced by removing "something."

Because as soon as you try to remove "something" you are still left with "something."

For instance, could the monistic entity cause itself to not exist, leaving "nothingness" in its wake? And the answer to that is, no. The one thing God cannot do is cease to exist. Because, in fact, there's nowhere for Him to go.

I think a much simpler argument against the possibility of something existing along side nothingness is just to define them as antithesis of each other. Where nothingness is the absolute absence of anything, everywhere. Where the mere existence of anything, automatically invalidates the state of nothingness.
I suppose that's one way to look at it.
But then you'd have a harder time with #4 where you invoke the idea of nothingness between two somethings.
I don't invoke the idea of nothingness between two "somethings." I argue that such an idea is absurd, impossible. And that's why if there is anything, it is only one thing.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #68

Post by Bust Nak »

Veridican wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:41 pm Again, I don't think you're comprehending what "nothingness" really means. And that's partly my fault because I keep referring to it like it was an object that exists. But "nothingness" is truly not-anything. So, it can't exist alongside "something." Because in such a scenario, "Something" is not juxtaposed to anything. It's not like looking at a planet floating alone in space. If there is "something"--it is truly the only thing there is, and it is ALL there is.

"Nothingness" is not empty space. "Nothingness" is the absence of all things, including anything that could observe it, or compare it, or sense it.
Well, that sounded a lot like the "antithesis of something" I mentioned before. I can work with that.
And this is why there can't be two things. Because between them, no matter how infinitesimal the space, would necessarily have to be "nothingness." But nothingness is not a possible state or field. For, if there ever had been nothing, nothing would have ever come from it. "Something" does not come from "nothing"--and "nothing" cannot be produced by removing "something."
I don't see why there can't be two things separated by a third something - empty space. But that just sound to me like a semantic argument of what constitute a "thing" and what constitute "parts of one thing" So lets move on to my challenge of fallacy of composition re: consciousness.

Post Reply