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
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18592
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #2

Post by otseng »

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1888 times
Been thanked: 1385 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #3

Post by Difflugia »

The main problem with your argument is that all of the potentially interesting details are simply declared to be axioms and beyond discussion. Even so, your conclusion still fails because it leaves the possibility that consciousness is an emergent, rather than inherent property of the universe. You've offered neither an axiom nor a logical argument that establishes that consciousness must be eternal, so even if one accepts all of your axioms, you still haven't established that the god you've defined was always conscious.

Your logical case establishes from your axioms that the universe is a part of something that necessarily includes some part of its existence outside of the universe. Without establishing that some form of consciousness must necessarily be eternal, though, this is indistinguishable from something like brane cosmology.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #4

Post by Veridican »

Difflugia wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:56 pm The main problem with your argument is that all of the potentially interesting details are simply declared to be axioms and beyond discussion.
Not so. In fact, it is the debate over whether the axioms are true or not that matters. If they are, then God exists. If they are not, or if the argument isn't supported by them, then it doesn't prove anything. That said, I do believe I was given this by the Holy Spirit, so I find it somewhat confirming that you feel the axioms are "beyond discussion." Because that only happens in two cases: when an argument is unfalsifiable...or it is true.
Even so, your conclusion still fails because it leaves the possibility that consciousness is an emergent, rather than inherent property of the universe. You've offered neither an axiom nor a logical argument that establishes that consciousness must be eternal, so even if one accepts all of your axioms, you still haven't established that the god you've defined was always conscious.
Well, it's not germane to the argument, but a monistic entity would not be part of "time," so nothing would ever really be emergent. Its attributes would be just that, attributes. So, in answer to your question, there's no way God could not have had consciousness as an attribute. Does it manifest modally in us the same as He? I don't know. I don't think so. The reason I don't is because it seems to me there is an indirect correlation between our sense of self and God's consciousness. The more we become like Him, the less we are ourselves.
Your logical case establishes from your axioms that the universe is a part of something that necessarily includes some part of its existence outside of the universe. Without establishing that some form of consciousness must necessarily be eternal, though, this is indistinguishable from something like brane cosmology.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. :dizzy:
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1888 times
Been thanked: 1385 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #5

Post by Difflugia »

Veridican wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 am
Difflugia wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:56 pm The main problem with your argument is that all of the potentially interesting details are simply declared to be axioms and beyond discussion.
Not so. In fact, it is the debate over whether the axioms are true or not that matters.
I misunderstood what you meant by "axiom," then. Typically, logical arguments are presented with a series of axioms that are either agreed to at the beginning of the discussion or are supposed to be self-evident. Did you mean that you're going to establish the truth of your axioms as part of your argument?
Veridican wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 amIf they are, then God exists. If they are not, or if the argument isn't supported by them, then it doesn't prove anything. That said, I do believe I was given this by the Holy Spirit, so I find it somewhat confirming that you feel the axioms are "beyond discussion." Because that only happens in two cases: when an argument is unfalsifiable...or it is true.
That's not what I meant by "beyond discussion." I took your presenting them as axioms without further support to mean that you were defining them to be outside of the discussion. If you're willing to support and defend them, then they're obviously not beyond the discussion.
Veridican wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 amWell, it's not germane to the argument, but a monistic entity would not be part of "time," so nothing would ever really be emergent. Its attributes would be just that, attributes. So, in answer to your question, there's no way God could not have had consciousness as an attribute.
You're relying on the presence of conscious entities within the universe as evidence that God is necessarily conscious. Since those entities are within time, their consciousness may be emergent. You haven't established a connection between the potentially emergent consciousness of entities within the universe and the consciousness of God outside of time.
Veridican wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 am
Difflugia wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:56 pmYour logical case establishes from your axioms that the universe is a part of something that necessarily includes some part of its existence outside of the universe. Without establishing that some form of consciousness must necessarily be eternal, though, this is indistinguishable from something like brane cosmology.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. :dizzy:
If I'm reading your argument correctly, you're arguing that if any part of the universe is able to be in a state of nothingness, that nothingness would be eternal. Since we don't have that state of nothingness now, any appearance of nothingness must actually have been part of something and that something is God.

That's more-or-less one of the arguments behind brane cosmology. If the universe is some sort of fluctuation in an apparent nothing, then there must still necessarily be some medium that is in flux. That medium is the "bulk" of brane cosmology.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #6

Post by Veridican »

Difflugia wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:55 pm I misunderstood what you meant by "axiom," then. Typically, logical arguments are presented with a series of axioms that are either agreed to at the beginning of the discussion or are supposed to be self-evident. Did you mean that you're going to establish the truth of your axioms as part of your argument?
Actually, I've had this argument many times before. Others have said they do not agree with the term "axiom." But in my opinion they are axioms because they are self-evident. Nevertheless, the paragraphs underneath them explain them further.

Veridican wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:42 amWell, it's not germane to the argument, but a monistic entity would not be part of "time," so nothing would ever really be emergent. Its attributes would be just that, attributes. So, in answer to your question, there's no way God could not have had consciousness as an attribute.
You're relying on the presence of conscious entities within the universe as evidence that God is necessarily conscious.
Yes, one axiom necessarily leads to the next. If God is the only thing that exists, then the observation of consciousness necessarily means God is conscious.
Since those entities are within time, their consciousness may be emergent. You haven't established a connection between the potentially emergent consciousness of entities within the universe and the consciousness of God outside of time.
I honestly don't see how that is germane to the argument at all. It may be a side issue to be discussed as a separate issue, but my purpose in the argument is only to show that the six axioms are necessarily true.
If I'm reading your argument correctly, you're arguing that if any part of the universe is able to be in a state of nothingness, that nothingness would be eternal. Since we don't have that state of nothingness now, any appearance of nothingness must actually have been part of something and that something is God.
What I'm arguing is that there cannot be a void anywhere. I'm arguing that either there was something or there was nothing, but you can't have both coexisting. Since there is something--that's indisputable--that means necessarily there cannot be a state of nothingness. Thus, "Nothingness" is an absurdity.
That's more-or-less one of the arguments behind brane cosmology. If the universe is some sort of fluctuation in an apparent nothing, then there must still necessarily be some medium that is in flux. That medium is the "bulk" of brane cosmology.
Got it, but I'm not an expert on brane cosmology, so I can't comment. But I will say this: Ironically, there's a problem with this argument in that to even name the Monistic Entity is to inject inaccuracy into our understanding of it. Because any nomenclature of any kind, any description, any compartmentalizing only serves to detract from our understanding that is the only thing that has ever existed. So, this argument risks some inaccurate revelation of God by calling God, God. But then, the only purpose of the argument is to show that it does exist. It is an ontological-type of argument. We can't use it, however, to understand anything about God beyond establishing His existence. After that, it's all about what theological frame of reference, what religiously-colored lenses we're going to look at Him through.

Jesus said, if you have seen him, you have seen the Father. And for me, I get that. I derive anything beyond the existence of God only from what I ascertain as a student of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
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 #7

Post by Veridican »

By the way, I just want to throw this in. The Veridican concept of God is not like what Classic Christians believe. Axiom 4 actually renders the classic Judeo-Christian/Muslim concept of God not only inaccurate but logically impossible. In other words, their god not only does not exist but CANNOT exist. It is an absurdity.

When I'm criticized for Veridicanism, most people don't criticize that. They criticize our canon of scripture, our use of Veridican astrology, the idea that we "become Christ (esse Christus). Most Christians however are not sophisticated enough to see that the Veridican notion of God is not the same as theirs.

And I'll go even further: We are the true religion a) because we follow ONLY Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and b) because our notion of God is necessarily true and theirs is necessarily an absurdity.

Just sayin...
Image
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #8

Post by Purple Knight »

Veridican wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:18 pm By the way, I just want to throw this in. The Veridican concept of God is not like what Classic Christians believe. Axiom 4 actually renders the classic Judeo-Christian/Muslim concept of God not only inaccurate but logically impossible. In other words, their god not only does not exist but CANNOT exist. It is an absurdity.
I'm wondering if your ideas are similar to Spinoza, who basically said, the universe is god.

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 #9

Post by Veridican »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:42 am I'm wondering if your ideas are similar to Spinoza, who basically said, the universe is god.
They are like Spinoza, but he didn't say the universe is God. He said there is only one substance--that's it. That's all there is. Nothing else exists except that it exists as a modality of the Substance. He also said there are infinite attributes of the Substance expressed in an infinity of modalities.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #10

Post by Purple Knight »

Veridican wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:31 am
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:42 am I'm wondering if your ideas are similar to Spinoza, who basically said, the universe is god.
They are like Spinoza, but he didn't say the universe is God. He said there is only one substance--that's it. That's all there is. Nothing else exists except that it exists as a modality of the Substance. He also said there are infinite attributes of the Substance expressed in an infinity of modalities.
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.

Post Reply