[Not being a fallacy of false dichotomy, I am neither a theist (non-atheist) or atheist. I am of no religion, understanding God necessarily is. I use only science, math, logic, and correct thinking and reasoning to find the obvious nature of God as the necessary existence for all other things in our existence. I do not concern myself with beliefs or faith (unless you wish to dissolve all knowledge into the categorical and egocentric predicaments).]
The first issue when it comes to the topic of God is that people think incorrectly. It’s not God that has not been shown in science, rather it is science which has already confirmed your logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and cognitive biases, preventing many from understanding God. Allow me to state this boldly: Everyone has a belief of God, once introduced to God. Many modern atheists have suggested that semantics dictates their neuropsychology, thinking that they are above their own neuroanatomy by suggesting “they lack a belief in God”. This is inaccurate. Let me explain this simply: your ventromedial prefrontal cortex does not subtract ideas, subtract thoughts, or subtract neuronal cliques. Instead, your brain and mind make judgement calls based on your own apperception. In laymen terms, an atheist holds the belief that God is a ‘guy in the sky’, and since this sounds ridiculous, they then disbelieve in this conception.
This happens because of cognitive biases and cognitive distortions. 98% of people think incorrectly when contemplating God. Most people are victims of heuristic biases and cascade cognitive biases (largely due to the religious dictation of God). Please understand, religion is people doing people things and has no determinacy of God. In fact, different religions are just different interpretations of God.
So, what is God? God is seen as the creator of all existence (‘creator truly being a personification bias, anthropic bias, and reification logical fallacy). Instead of starting the first distortion, rather than “creator”, let’s use “source (A) and mereological sum of existence (Ω)”. God has also been properly defined as “Necessary Existence” by philosophers. All of those religious stories you are familiar with are just man-made stories, and the different religious sects are just different interpretations which can easily be explained by history and cultural (sociological and anthropological) differences.
This is a very large topic since this concerns the existence of all things that exist. So instead of filling you guys with words I want to state a point for later discussion and then hop directly into correct thinking.
The point: There is already evidence and proof of God in scientific data, logic, and maths.
Correct thinking: instead of giving you guys a story, I’m going to simply give you guys correct thinking in the form of raw data, showing how you need to first consider the necessity of God for our existence by identifying the correct placement where X must be necessary and x inevitably being God. Getting to it:
Can God exist?
[First thing first- G is not Contingent if and only if G is necessary or impossible. As G implies the Necessary Existence for all else in existence (therefore cannot be contingent on any other existent thing) G is only Necessary or Impossible.]
Necessarily, It is possible G exists if and only if it is not necessary G does not Exist.
It is necessary G exists if and only if it is not possible G does not exist. In other words, It is necessary G exists if and only if it is not impossible that G exists and it is impossible G exists if and only if it is not necessary G exists.
Is God impossible?
Impossible is most accurately defined as 0 probability or 0 chance. Thus, Impossible defined as 0 probability or 0 chance is materially equivalent to 0 probability or 0 chance equal to impossibility. However, 0 probability or 0 chance does not entail impossible, therefore 0 probability or 0 chance does not accurately define Impossible, logically implicating Impossible is impossible. Impossible being logically Impossible, It is possible G necessarily exists.
Is it probable G is impossible?
“Statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low, *but not truly impossible* as impossible outcomes have a probability of zero, while zero probability outcomes are necessarily not impossible.” A zero probability outcome is expressed as a denominator that approaches a constant before infinity and the entire expression approaches to a constant before absolute zero.
In relation to G, An impossible outcome is only an infinite approach to certainly impossible and never achieves 0 outcome or actual impossibility. The denominator of impossible outcome is most precisely defined as a constant infinity, where Infinite Impossible outcomes is infinitely accurate as necessarily impossible if and only if infinity is not infinity in the sense if infinity achieves infinity, thereby completing itself, it is inconsistent to infinity (now being finite), meaning the infinity of impossible outcomes will be inconsistent necessitating an outcome of possibility, and since G is not a contingent possibility, the outcome is necessary. Therefore it is possible G necessarily exists.
[This event occurs because Impossible is an effect rather than a cause, essentially conveying impossible is impossible (on the grounds of possibilities and probabilities), but what makes something actually impossible is if it lacks sufficient reason to exist at all, and conversely, what allows something to exist is if it has a sufficient (causal) reason to exist.]
|s God suffciently reasoned to exist?
The principle of sufficient reason states there is a sufficient (causal) reason for all that exists, introducing causality: the *connection* between cause and effect, where the cause is responsible for the effect, and the effect is dependent on the cause, with all existing states of events or objects determined by prior states of previously existing causes (causal determinism). In other words, everything that exists, is caused or sufficiently reasoned to exist by other sufficiently reasoned prior causes. God entails the first cause; the cause of all causes or reason of all reasons.
Existence is sufficiently reasoned to exist, like all other things that exist. If existence is not sufficiently reasoned to exist, then existence would not exist. The predicament arises in how existence is sufficiently reasoned to exist. There’s ultimately either the first Cause (God), supernatural magic (heuristic interpretation of God), infinite regress of causes (infinite contingency), or interdependent-teleological causation (which ultimately brings us right back to God). Only one of these explanations attempts to defy God—infinite regress of causes.
If existence is contingent on an infinite regress of causes, then 1) all labeled causes can be equally labeled as effects, rather than causes, insofar infinite regress of effects remain without cause for existence and causality does not exist or 2) all that exists (and all causes) are ultimately contingent, and existence (with all causation) depends on causes outside of existence. Causes outside of existence are nonexistent causes. Causes that are nonexistent, don’t exist, since they exist outside of existence. Therefore, existence cannot be dependent on nonexistent causes, concluding existence is not dependent on infinite regress of causes. Existence only ‘regresses’ to the first cause (source) of all existence, the source et al a.k.a God is sufficiently reasoned to exist.
Is there a distinction between all of existence and the source of existence?
The source of all existence presupposes all other things in existence, thus being a part and therefore like all other things in existence, existing as a part of all existence. But since the source has a unique property or function, unlike all else in existence by being the source, therefore it is distinct from all else in existence being unlike all other things in existence.
Can the source/ cause of existence have a source? (Can the creator have a creator?)
Being the source of existence, it is the cause for all other things in existence. To suggest this source has a source is to basically suggest that the source of all existence has a nonexistent source. Nonexistence doesn’t exist. Therefore, the source of all existence does not have a source itself since this such a source would not exist. Hence, the source is the source, period.
What must this source contain since we know we exist in this existence as it exists?
The source must be necessary and not contingent.
The source must be sufficiently reasoned.
The source must contain the mereological sum.
The source must necessarily have beingness for beings (creatures and us) to exist.
Such an entity, would necessitate particular properties:
Purity and perfection
Since these would be required to unify all existent things under a singular existence.
We already have this scientific data and reasoning people.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.