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 #51

Post by Veridican »

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:55 am Isn't sin a voluntary act?
What do you think? Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It's better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with one eye than to enter hell with two."

What do you think He meant by that?
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #52

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Veridican in post #49
Justice? Justice matters to us because we are under justice. But what about God? The author of justice. Even if you don't believe in God, if you do the thought experiment, then you will see that Justice is whatever God says it is--even if you don't like it.

God can burn an innocent person in hell, and we can't. If God does it; it is good. Because if God exists, then by definition, whatever He wants is what has to be.
Then how do you know that Molech isn't God? If he is, then is causing children to be passed through his fire the right thing to do?

And you still seem to be presuming [incorrectly] that I'm an atheist.
Last edited by Athetotheist on Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3406
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 267 times
Been thanked: 947 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #53

Post by Miles »

Veridican wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:15 am
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:55 am Isn't sin a voluntary act?
What do you think? Jesus said, "If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It's better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with one eye than to enter hell with two."

What do you think He meant by that?
Here's how it goes.

If sin does not require an act of volition AND people have free will then somethings they do could be considered a sin.
If sin does not require an act of volition AND people don't have free will then somethings they do could be considered a sin.
If sin requires an act of volition AND people have free will then somethings they do could be considered a sin.

However

If sin requires an act of volition AND people don't have free will then nothing they do should be considered a sin.

Thing is, because any claim of free will carries a burden of proof, this would have to be shown, in which case I await your evidence.


.

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 #54

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:59 pm
Then how do you know that Molech isn't God? If he is, then is causing children to be passed through his fire the right thing to do?

And you still seem to be presuming [incorrectly] that I'm an atheist.
I don't know who Molech is and identifying God by a name is not philosophically sound. God is the monistic entity; He's not limited in the way that names limit things. But I will say this: You have a sense of right and wrong; it's called natural law. But you only have that because it's from God. I mean, you are a modality of an attribute of the monistic entity, and that includes your mind. The problem, philosophically, is that you turn around and apply that morality to the author of that morality, and that's the one being to whom it does not apply.

I don't think a person can know God until they are willing to bow down to God, and I know that sounds servile and debasing, and it would be, if we were applying that advice to anyone other than the Creator of quarks and galaxies. But when one bows down to God, it's actually part of following that natural law that is in each of us. It was designed into us.

I assume you're an atheist because you talk like an atheist. So... You know, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... :?

Are you not an atheist? What are you? What's your religious disposition?
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #55

Post by Athetotheist »

Veridican wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:47 am
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:59 pm
Then how do you know that Molech isn't God? If he is, then is causing children to be passed through his fire the right thing to do?

And you still seem to be presuming [incorrectly] that I'm an atheist.
I don't know who Molech is and identifying God by a name is not philosophically sound. God is the monistic entity; He's not limited in the way that names limit things. But I will say this: You have a sense of right and wrong; it's called natural law. But you only have that because it's from God. I mean, you are a modality of an attribute of the monistic entity, and that includes your mind. The problem, philosophically, is that you turn around and apply that morality to the author of that morality, and that's the one being to whom it does not apply.

I don't think a person can know God until they are willing to bow down to God, and I know that sounds servile and debasing, and it would be, if we were applying that advice to anyone other than the Creator of quarks and galaxies. But when one bows down to God, it's actually part of following that natural law that is in each of us. It was designed into us.

I assume you're an atheist because you talk like an atheist. So... You know, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... :?

Are you not an atheist? What are you? What's your religious disposition?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moloch-ancient-god

Now that you know who Molech is, how do you know he isn't God? Because child sacrifice is abhorrent? Doing abhorrent things doesn't seem to be a disqualifier in your reckoning.....
God can burn an innocent person in hell


I do not talk like an atheist. Atheists say things like, "God doesn't exist." I don't. I'm more along these lines:

Merriam-Webster, "natural religion":
specifically : a religion that is universally discernible by all men through the use of human reason apart from any special revelation

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 #56

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:38 pm
Now that you know who Molech is, how do you know he isn't God? Because child sacrifice is abhorrent? Doing abhorrent things doesn't seem to be a disqualifier in your reckoning.....
I don't have multiple ways to answer what is essentially the same question. But you can't say God does abhorrent things. God does what God does. I don't think you fully understand the notion of "God" with a capital G. And more than that, I don't think you're really willing to think about it in depth. I think you have your position, and that's gonna be your position.


I do not talk like an atheist. Atheists say things like, "God doesn't exist." I don't. I'm more along these lines:

Merriam-Webster, "natural religion":

specifically : a religion that is universally discernible by all men through the use of human reason apart from any special revelation
You say you're not an atheist. Fine. It's not really any of my business or concern.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7165
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1299 times
Been thanked: 1518 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #57

Post by Tcg »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:38 pm

I do not talk like an atheist. Atheists say things like, "God doesn't exist."
Some atheists may say that. Not all do. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods which does not necessarily include the positive claim that "God doesn't exist."


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #58

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Veridican in post #56
But you can't say God does abhorrent things.
If Zeus, Osiris or any other deity you don't call God were said to burn an innocent person in hell, wouldn't you call it abhorrent?
I don't think you fully understand the notion of "God" with a capital G.
Is the concept of God unrelated to the concept of right and wrong?

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 #59

Post by Veridican »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:55 pm Is the concept of God unrelated to the concept of right and wrong?
Yep. You keep thinking that God is "under" morality, like we are. But He's not. He's the author of morality. Well, it's even more than that: He's the author of truth and reality. 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.
All for Christ and only for Christ! :wave:

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1188
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Veridican Argument for the Existence of God

Post #60

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to Veridican in post #59
Yep. You keep thinking that God is "under" morality, like we are. But He's not.
You keep thinking that Zeus or Osiris couldn't be God, but you're not explaining why.
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.
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

Post Reply