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 #11

Post by Veridican »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:45 am
Well, you do say the universe is conscious. Either way I don't have a large problem with it. It doesn't have any of the aspects of Christianity I have any problems with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
He calls this substance "God or Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism.
A lot of times, people say that I'm a pantheist, and have to correct them on that. It's just like Spinoza, he was falsely accused of equating the world with God. Granted, the difference between pantheism and monism is subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world (no pun intended). I usually tell people the difference is this: My coffee cup is God, but God isn't just my coffee cup. So, the whole universe is of the substance of God, but God is not just the universe. All the world is of the substance of God, but God is not made of the substance of the world. It can be a bit head spinning, but it's important. O:)
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 173 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #12

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Veridican in post #6
We can't use it, however, to understand anything about God beyond establishing His existence.
Yet you keep referring to God as gender-specific.

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 #13

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:57 am [Replying to Veridican in post #6
We can't use it, however, to understand anything about God beyond establishing His existence.
Yet you keep referring to God as gender-specific.
Correct. That's called a "convention."
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 173 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #14

Post by Athetotheist »

Veridican wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:28 am
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:57 am [Replying to Veridican in post #6
We can't use it, however, to understand anything about God beyond establishing His existence.
Yet you keep referring to God as gender-specific.
Correct. That's called a "convention."
I notice that you didn't capitalize the word "convention".

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 #15

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:42 am I notice that you didn't capitalize the word "convention".
Clearly, you have nothing to add to this discussion. But that's what this argument has always done: renders the atheists speechless. :pelvic_thrust:
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 173 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #16

Post by Athetotheist »

Veridican wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:12 am
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:42 am I notice that you didn't capitalize the word "convention".
Clearly, you have nothing to add to this discussion. But that's what this argument has always done: renders the atheists speechless. :pelvic_thrust:
Welcome to the forum, Student. You haven't read very much of what I've written if you think I'm an atheist. Maybe you should give yourself a chance to cut your teeth here before you get snarky.

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 #17

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:40 am Welcome to the forum, Student. You haven't read very much of what I've written if you think I'm an atheist. Maybe you should give yourself a chance to cut your teeth here before you get snarky.
So, what are you, if not an atheist? Are you a Christian?
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 173 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #18

Post by Athetotheist »

Veridican wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:37 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:40 am Welcome to the forum, Student. You haven't read very much of what I've written if you think I'm an atheist. Maybe you should give yourself a chance to cut your teeth here before you get snarky.
So, what are you, if not an atheist? Are you a Christian?
"So, are yuh Chinese 'r Japanese?"
---Hank Hill

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 670 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #19

Post by Purple Knight »

Veridican wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:45 amA lot of times, people say that I'm a pantheist, and have to correct them on that. It's just like Spinoza, he was falsely accused of equating the world with God. Granted, the difference between pantheism and monism is subtle, but it makes all the difference in the world (no pun intended). I usually tell people the difference is this: My coffee cup is God, but God isn't just my coffee cup. So, the whole universe is of the substance of God, but God is not just the universe. All the world is of the substance of God, but God is not made of the substance of the world. It can be a bit head spinning, but it's important. O:)
I read Spinoza in college. I don't misunderstand; I did say basically for a reason. Spinoza is difficult to explain.

It was fun to watch you get jumped on for proving God when the God you proved is the God of someone who is, from the atheist's point of view, barely religious (and again I'm oversimplifying deliberately). Difflugia seems to understand your argument and the minor leap about consciousness possibly being emergent, but I don't anyone else did. Good show. +1 to anyone who makes me lol at my own side. That's why I'm here.
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:17 pm "So, are yuh Chinese 'r Japanese?"
---Hank Hill
At this point, if you're Laotian, you can say that, and explain that it's neither, and that Laos is a small Asian country with really good spicy food bordering Myanmar/Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam, rather than making fun of people who don't have access to that information.

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 #20

Post by Veridican »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:36 pm
I read Spinoza in college. I don't misunderstand; I did say basically for a reason. Spinoza is difficult to explain.
That's a fact!
It was fun to watch you get jumped on for proving God when the God you proved is the God of someone who is, from the atheist's point of view, barely religious (and again I'm oversimplifying deliberately). Difflugia seems to understand your argument and the minor leap about consciousness possibly being emergent, but I don't anyone else did. Good show. +1 to anyone who makes me lol at my own side. That's why I'm here.
Cool! Thanks for your comments on that. :thanks: O:)

What did you study in college? And, if I might ask, where are you at religiously?
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Post Reply