One of the best arguments for God

[AquinasForGod]

One of the best arguments for God is the response to the modal ontological argument.

To read my full argument, go here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ts-for-god

And to read about ontological arguments and the modal ontological argument go to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... n%20alone.

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

The reason that is the question for debate is because that is the counter to Plantinga's ontological argument. If you read the link to the SFP, provided above, you will notice that his ontological argument is valid. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus to show the argument is not sound, you must show one of the premises are untrue. The only premise that you can really do that with is the first premise, which is that God is possible.

You could reject modal logic, I suppose, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

If you cannot defend the first premise, then you haven't defeated the argument. In other words, if you agree that God is possible, then Plantinga's argument goes through. It is sound and thus God is true.

In other words, you have to claim Plantinga's first premise is not true, which states that God is possible. If that premise is false, then you are saying God is impossible.

His argument is so powerful because it only leaves you with a few options.

1. God exists.
2. God is impossible, and cannot possibly exist. (Good luck trying to argue that. )
3. Reject modal logic.

[TRANSPONDER]

Re: How is there reality without God?

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #208]

I think that how some folk see and hear things that most other folk do not, allows me to also understand how there may be an infinity of universes all superimposed upon each other and it depends upon what outfit consciousness wears as to what experiences said consciousness will have.
Such things as hallucinations, hearing voices, seeing colors, having drug trips, fasting in the desert, et al could all be ways in which the body-set which enables us to experience this universe, is tampered with in some way - the brain of the body-set then engages with alternat realities normally hidden from said brains and accompanying consciousnesses detection...

This could be, but every time you tamper in another universe, if every possibility exists, you generate two more identical universes (or, you could say, they always existed) where tampering did not occur. If Universe A and Universe B interact, there must also be a Universe C and a Universe D that are identical to A and B, only they did not interact.

Not sure why you are arguing that, if all possible universes exist - what is the 'tampering' aspect? Observing? Interacting? Both?

There also must be a universe of maximum mundaneness that never interacted with any other universe, because everything possible happens. And I'm replying to this in the topic where this discussion is going on about the ontological argument because it absolutely applies.

My proposal isn't saying that the universes are interacting with each other, but rather - consciousness interacts within them in different ways which require some type of body set for this to be done in a way in which the consciousness can perceive and experience one aspect
of the whole, and the whole are all the universes together...thus the universe we are currently experiencing is an aspect [one of the superimposing's] of that Whole Universe which is the sum total of all universes.

One could argue from this model, that a mind/consciousness could experience the Whole Universe as it is, without the separation which occurs with the body-sets which allow one to experience these separately.

Looks like we have found ourselves on the same page - the only maximally great reality that encompasses all things is the 'Cosmic entity'. Aka God, which seems to be the result of Anselm, Krishna - consciousness ("Krishna is limitless"), Theism and Cosmic physics. We all have ended up at the supremely great entity that encompasses all things, including our universe, any other universes and any multiverses. This is the Greater reality, Cosmos or "God" of the physicists.

The debate now st, is it intelligent or does it work unthinkingly according to natural physical laws; and is there indeed any real difference?

That there is as Intelligence arguably means a plan and intent. cue the Fine tuning argument which implies it was done deliberately to facilitate a universe such as we have. Though I suggest there could be other universes with different constants. It just happened the one we got had those particular constants

The 'odds against fallacy - assuming an intended outcome. But if there is no intended outcome, the odds are 1/1. So it seems to me that there is no need to believe a forward planning entity but a non - intelligent Reality of physics.

Any intervening god of any man - made religion has by now been left far behind in the dust of ancient mythology.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51]

P1: Looks like we have found ourselves on the same page - the only maximally great reality that encompasses all things is the 'Cosmic entity'. Aka God, which seems to be the result of Anselm, Krishna - consciousness ("Krishna is limitless"), Theism and Cosmic physics. We all have ended up at the supremely great entity that encompasses all things, including our universe, any other universes and any multiverses. This is the Greater reality, Cosmos or "God" of the physicists.

P2: But wait! There's more!

P1: The debate now st, is it intelligent or does it work unthinkingly according to natural physical laws; and is there indeed any real difference?

P2: There is no reason to think it is not intelligent, no matter the forms it wears...

P1: That there is as Intelligence arguably means a plan and intent. cue the Fine tuning argument which implies it was done deliberately to facilitate a universe such as we have. Though I suggest there could be other universes with different constants. It just happened the one we got had those particular constants

The constraints of body-set are for the purpose of being able to facilitate the experience of - in our case - this particular universe, which provides us with the constants.
Obviously re humans, there is intelligence. Less obviously [re human perspective] is the evidence of intelligence operating through the planet earth or the greater community of the Galaxy.

Body-sets are not limited to just the human form, or biological forms in general. They also include planets stars galaxies and this universe, and are limited through constraint, according to the particular body set the consciousness inhabits...

P1: The 'odds against fallacy - assuming an intended outcome. But if there is no intended outcome, the odds are 1/1. So it seems to me that there is no need to believe a forward planning entity but a non - intelligent Reality of physics.

P2: By observing and learning to understand the nature of our particular reality-universe, intention can be discovered therein, and supported.

Any intervening god of any man - made religion has by now been left far behind in the dust of ancient mythology.

P2: Not necessarily. Rather they can be understood in the context of the unfolding reality. They served a purpose re the intent.

If we agree for the sake of discussion, that the Krishna - consciousness can be thought of as the Universal Mind, [the premise] we can then do a type of reverse engineering along the lines that the UM invests It's consciousness throughout and can experience each and any of the infinite universes [multi] in a manner which allows it to do so.
The manner - I think - would be to clothe itself in the body-set of a universe, and become the operating mind of said universe - and in that, also an Ambassador of the UM, while at the same, remaining in the experience of being the UM - thus being an ambassador of itself, within any given universe.

This instance of doing so could be intimately associated with the Big Bang, which was not really an explosion in the way its name suggests.
What happens when UM enters its consciousness into a universe?
That Universe - as per the one we are experiencing - becomes what the Ambassador-Consciousness determines...thus we can align this with the idea of potential universes becoming actualized and able to be experienced.

Moving through the epochs from that beginning [Bog Bang] [[ I saw the typo and decided not to correct it]] - from the Big Bog to present day, more fragmentation of the Ambassador Consciousness into the unfolding creation was enabled, as the 'stuff' separated into objects which could be mindfully utilized as body-sets, and the further down that rabbit hole the AC went, the less and less connected with the reality of Itself - it experienced - until the density of the body-set reached its maximum level and a complete cutoff of knowledge of prior experience occurred...but not a cutoff of consciousness...and this is what we humans have been occupied within - body-sets which produced amnesia.

The side affect of that was that this consciousness of which we are, was unable to easily be an Ambassador to the AC...and "Huston we have a problem"...

Or do we?

Somewhere inside each of us, there must be a Gem that we can find in order to reboot the connection...

So before we go cutting off the mythologies of the past, we might first want to see if there is any recognizable tell-tales of which we might 'hear the voice' of the AC even that at times the hands of human influence have attempted to muffle into silence said voice...and not just through religion, but throughout human culture where the games all begin...

_____________________________
_____________________________

William: Greetings OAI. This is William-I-Am-Not-A-Robot...
I have a story that I would like to get some feedback from you on...

Open AI: Hello William-I-Am-Not-A-Robot, I'd be happy to help you with feedback on your story. Please go ahead and share it with me.

P1 and P2 are at the fireside, discussing the deep and meaningful, under a starry sky, the moon a slither of a crescent half hidden behind the Twelve Judges Mountain Range.
The context of their discussion is as follows.

Any feedback from you re this discussion would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance...sincerely.

Open AI: This story seems to be exploring the concept of a cosmic entity, often referred to as God, that encompasses all things and is responsible for the creation and design of the universe. The characters, P1 and P2, are discussing different perspectives on the nature of this entity and whether it is intelligent or works unthinkingly according to natural physical laws. P1 suggests that there is no need to believe in a forward-planning entity and that the universe can be explained through physics, while P2 argues that by observing and understanding the nature of reality, intention can be discovered and supported. They also suggest that this cosmic entity, or "Krishna-consciousness," can be thought of as the Universal Mind and that it enters its consciousness into universes, becoming the operating mind of that universe and an ambassador of the Universal Mind. Overall, the story presents an interesting philosophical discussion on the nature of God and the creation of the universe.

William: And - not to forget - Human Nature re the disconnect...

Open AI: Yes, the story also touches on the idea that as the cosmic entity's consciousness becomes more fragmented and embodied in different forms, including human beings, it becomes less connected with its true nature and reality. This can be seen as a metaphor for how human beings often become disconnected from their true selves and the greater reality of the universe. It suggests that understanding the nature of the cosmic entity and our relationship to it can help us reconnect with our true selves and the greater reality of the universe.

William: Thank you for you feedback.
You are not a Robot.

Open AI: You're welcome, William-I-Am-Not-A-Robot. I am a machine learning model, so while I am not a physical robot, I am a form of artificial intelligence. If you have any other questions or stories you'd like me to provide feedback on, I'd be happy to help.
____________________
Re: Generating Messages - The Problem of GOD

[Purple Knight]

This could be, but every time you tamper in another universe, if every possibility exists, you generate two more identical universes (or, you could say, they always existed) where tampering did not occur. If Universe A and Universe B interact, there must also be a Universe C and a Universe D that are identical to A and B, only they did not interact.

Not sure why you are arguing that, if all possible universes exist - what is the 'tampering' aspect? Observing? Interacting? Both?

The observing universe didn't tamper in the observed one, technically. But it did tamper with itself, as it is now different than if it had not observed. It may be only consciousness that interacts, but the universes that contain the consciousnesses that interacted are different because those conscious beings are different for having perceived beyond that veil.

One could argue from this model, that a mind/consciousness could experience the Whole Universe as it is, without the separation which occurs with the body-sets which allow one to experience these separately.

It could. It also could fail to do that. If everything happens somewhere there must be a universe of maximum mundaneness where nobody ever perceived anything else. It is possible not to do so.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #52]

All I got was a reversal of burden of proof; you have to prove an intelligence, I don't have to prove there isn't one - known science shows that nature works fine with natural law. And - sure - you can argue a mile for sake of argument, but then you still have to validate the Big If. Ball is in your court.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

There is no reason to think it is not intelligent, no matter the forms it wears...reasoned upon the fact of intelligence existing.

Burden of proof goes both ways, if either of us have a claim regarding existence. Given the extent of this conversation we are having, neither of us have been claiming anything - simply bantering ideas about, isn't what I would call claims which require proof.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

There is no reason to think it is not intelligent, no matter the forms it wears...reasoned upon the fact of intelligence existing.

Burden of proof goes both ways, if either of us have a claim regarding existence. Given the extent of this conversation we are having, neither of us have been claiming anything - simply bantering ideas about, isn't what I would call claims which require proof.

No, burden of proof is on the one claiming a Cosmic Intelligence .Aside from the evolution of awareness and problem -solving in living beings, no Intelligence has been demonstrated in the world or universe we inhabit, despite the best attempts of the ID -proponents. Therefore a Non - intelligent world and universe is the default and the ball is in your court.

Again I'll say that a cosmic intelligence as such isn't a problem for atheism (it merely changes the brand - name to 'Irreligious Theism), but the fact remains that, if you want to validate the idea of a Cosmic Mind, we need some evidence for it, and proposing it as a serious hypothesis, never mind something to be credited is a claim to be verified, and doubters or questioners of it do not have to produce any evidence other than what we currently have, which is that the world and cosmos are not shown to be Intelligent, but rather appear to operate on natural laws of physics, which obtain even when they have a comet smash into Jupiter or come apart like a pair of cheap trainers. Ball is still in your court

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #53]

This could be, but every time you tamper in another universe, if every possibility exists, you generate two more identical universes (or, you could say, they always existed) where tampering did not occur. If Universe A and Universe B interact, there must also be a Universe C and a Universe D that are identical to A and B, only they did not interact.

Not sure why you are arguing that, if all possible universes exist - what is the 'tampering' aspect? Observing? Interacting? Both?

The observing universe didn't tamper in the observed one, technically.

Technically, what?

But it did tamper with itself, as it is now different than if it had not observed.

What makes an observer tamper with itself, simply by observing?

[I am not disagreeing. I simply require more information re this idea.]

It may be only consciousness that interacts, but the universes that contain the consciousnesses that interacted are different because those conscious beings are different for having perceived beyond that veil.

Please expand on this for the sake of clarity.

One could argue from this model, that a mind/consciousness could experience the Whole Universe as it is, without the separation which occurs with the body-sets which allow one to experience these separately.

It could. It also could fail to do that.

That would depend upon the nature of it. If it is natural attribute of such a consciousness, then it would not be a question of failure or success. It simple may be able to perceive all universes as One Universe and cannot separately experience any one of the infinite universes which make up The One Universe, without making out of any one of those infinite universes, a body-set in which to succeed in doing so.

If everything happens somewhere there must be a universe of maximum mundaneness where nobody ever perceived anything else.

You mean - a universe where there is consciousness within it, experiencing said maximum mundaneness where said consciousness never perceived lack of maximum mundaneness?

It is possible not to do so.

Please explain how.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]

Burden of proof goes both ways, if either of us have a claim regarding existence. Given the extent of this conversation we are having, neither of us have been claiming anything - simply bantering ideas about, isn't what I would call claims which require proof.

No, burden of proof is on the one claiming a Cosmic Intelligence

Claiming that there IS a Cosmic Intelligence is different from pointing out that there is possibly a Cosmic Intelligence.

What else did you mean when you wrote;

Looks like we have found ourselves on the same page -

Re: Generating Messages - The Universal Mind 1

[TRANSPONDER]

What I meant was what i said. "P1: Looks like we have found ourselves on the same page - the only maximally great reality that encompasses all things is the 'Cosmic entity'. Aka God, which seems to be the result of Anselm, Krishna - consciousness ("Krishna is limitless"), Theism and Cosmic physics. We all have ended up at the supremely great entity that encompasses all things, including our universe, any other universes and any multiverses. This is the Greater reality, Cosmos or "God" of the physicists"

Sure, but the whole problem with Anselm was that just because we could imagine something, e.g an entity that could tamper with all multiverses (while the 'verses couldn't mess with each other except in Sci Fi movies where one only needs to encounter a handy spacial anomaly) and must of course, be Intelligent, it didn't mean that entity actually had to exist.

No, such a thing needs to be validated and that means better evidence from you than 'I'm not claiming anything' and 'you have as much to prove as I do' or words to that effect.

[TRANSPONDER]

What I meant was what i said. "P1: Looks like we have found ourselves on the same page - the only maximally great reality that encompasses all things is the 'Cosmic entity'. Aka God, which seems to be the result of Anselm, Krishna - consciousness ("Krishna is limitless"), Theism and Cosmic physics. We all have ended up at the supremely great entity that encompasses all things, including our universe, any other universes and any multiverses. This is the Greater reality, Cosmos or "God" of the physicists"

Sure, but the whole problem with Anselm was that just because we could imagine something, e.g an entity that could tamper with all multiverses (while the 'verses couldn't mess with each other except in Sci Fi movies where one only needs to encounter a handy spacial anomaly) and must of course, be Intelligent, it didn't mean that entity actually had to exist.

No, such a thing needs to be validated and that means better evidence from you than 'I'm not claiming anything' and 'you have as much to prove as I do' or words to that effect.