# Proof of God

41 posts / 0 new
Proof of God

This is by far the best reasoning I've heard from a Christian.

You're thoughts?

## Subscription Note:

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.

This was poorly thought out.

Saying god wasn't or couldn't have a cause is pure special pleading.

We have no experience with nonexistence to assess whether it could create anything.

If we invoke god to explain the universe, we also have to invoke an eternal and infinite dimension outside the universe for it to exist in, as things do not exist withing nonexistence.

Invoking god does precisely nothing to answer the mechanics of the origin of the universe.

There is nothing wrong with an infinity. An infinity is not an eternity, and actually can have a beginning.

There is no such thing as an infinite regress without time.

I honestly didn't get any further than that, once an argument has failed this spectacularly, I tend to move on.

If infinity has a beginning... how can it be infinity any more?

If you started at 2,568,953 you could still count to infinity. An infinity and eternity are not the same thing.

What I think is this. Correct me if I am wrong.

As you cannot add anything or subtract anything from infinity... you can never reach infinity by adding two finite quantities. So if you start from a finite number , 2568953, no matter how much you count... it would still not be infinity.

"As you cannot add anything or subtract anything from infinity"

Who told you that? You most certainly can do that...

so are you saying that infinity + 1 is greater than infinity? and infinity - 1 is smaller than infinity?

Let "I" be infinity:

(1+3+5+7+9+...I)-(2+4+6+8+10+...I)=I
(1+3+5+7+9+...I)+(2+4+6+8+10+...I)=I

I realize that you don't understand it, but an infinity can be either positive or negative. Mathematicians have zero problems with infinities, they deal with them daily. Infinity can have a start, just not an end.

nope I didn't say that. However there are quantities to you can add or subtract from infinity and get answers which are not infinity (it just happens that 1 is not one of those quantities).

but are you saying that adding some quantity to infinity will make it greater than infinity?

That wasn't what he said at all.

therefore... by adding any quantity to infinity... infinity doesn't change... right?

I already told you, you can start with an infinite quantity then add to it a different quantity, and get a result that is finite.

The word "infinite" means literally "endless".

"unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless:"
VIEW SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinite?s=t

Infinity means that the set has no limitations on it, so to start at 250,000 and count to infinity, you will never reach a number called infinity. Rather what will happen is you will never cease counting. This means that a set with a beginning but no end is a FUTURE-infinite set.

Let's say I have an collection of coins numbered 1,2,3,4, etc. all the way out to infinity. If I then subtract all the even numbers, what number am I left with? Well, I still have all the odd numbered coins, so I am still left with an infinite number of coins, even though I just subtracted an infinite number of coins.

as Travis said, for example:

consider the graph of the function f(x) = sqrt(x-3)
It has an infinite number of points, but they start at x=3

I find it interesting that the one someone had a problem with was one of the most trivial on the list...

"Saying god wasn't or couldn't have a cause is pure special pleading".

This is actually the fallacious non-sequitur mistake that almost every atheist makes. The atheist claims that since theists assert that the Universe cannot be eternal, but that God is, they are, thereby, committing the fallacy of special pleading. But this is to ignore what the definition of special pleading is:
"Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]" Notice the last part of the definition WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE EXCEPTION.

This has been done by theists time and time again. We can justify why God is exempted from having a cause. As the cause of space and time, God will exist spacelessly and timelessly. To exist timelessly entails absolute changlessness, because there is no time in which change can be brought about. This means that the cause of the Universe never comes into existence, as that is change. Thus, the cause of the Universe (in this instance God) must exist eternally.

"If we invoke god to explain the universe, we also have to invoke an eternal and infinite dimension outside the universe for it to exist in..."

This is patently false, as God is spaceless, rendering Him immaterial. This, in turn, means that God is not physical and so does not exist at any where. Thusly, no dimension need be created for God to exist within, because God is not physical to be within something in the first place.

"Invoking god does precisely nothing to answer the mechanics of the origin of the universe."

It does. Firstly, science has not yet been able to tell us by what means the Universe came into existence, and theists responding with God are saying that, via exercising His free will, God brings a universe into existence, which would be the mechanism by which God creates the Universe.

"There is nothing wrong with an infinity."

This is true, however, infinites cannot objectively exist, in the sense that one would say a car exists. Infinites can only exist in the mathematical sense. They do not exist within reality, thus rendering an infinite past-time of the Universe mathematically impossible.
Infinite sets do not have beginnings. Future-infinite sets have a beginning, but no end.

"This is actually the fallacious non-sequitur mistake that almost every atheist makes. The atheist claims that since theists assert that the Universe cannot be eternal, but that God is, they are, thereby, committing the fallacy of special pleading. But this is to ignore what the definition of special pleading is:
"Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception." Notice the last part of the definition WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE EXCEPTION.

This has been done by theists time and time again. We can justify why God is exempted from having a cause. As the cause of space and time, God will exist spacelessly and timelessly. To exist timelessly entails absolute changlessness, because there is no time in which change can be brought about. This means that the cause of the Universe never comes into existence, as that is change. Thus, the cause of the Universe (in this instance God) must exist eternally."

Space-less, timeless, and changeless? It seems we agree that your god exists nowhere at no time and does nothing. The idea that positing any space-less, timeless, and changeless entity(god, pixies, dragons) gives us an answer is flat out wrong. The fact that god has so very many characteristics in common with the nothing theists claim we believe came from is hilarious.

"This is patently false, as God is spaceless, rendering Him immaterial. This, in turn, means that God is not physical and so does not exist at any where. Thusly, no dimension need be created for God to exist within, because God is not physical to be within something in the first place."

Can god exist in nonexistence? If it can't, then there must be some form of existence within which it exists. If it can, then it is the same as the nothing you so adamantly abhor.

"It does."

I suppose we will see about that.

"Firstly, science has not yet been able to tell us by what means the Universe came into existence, and theists responding with God are saying that, via exercising His free will, God brings a universe into existence, which would be the mechanism by which God creates the Universe."

How, magic? What are the physics behind that? If you can't provide how this is any different than magic, and can't show that it is actually possible or probable with actual physics, how is this any answer at all? Besides, I thought it was changeless, changeless things have no action at ALL, for an action would be a change.

"This is true, however, infinites cannot objectively exist, in the sense that one would say a car exists. Infinites can only exist in the mathematical sense. They do not exist within reality, thus rendering an infinite past-time of the Universe mathematically impossible."

Not a mathematical impossibility, I think you misspoke. Infinities can exist mathematically, and perhaps only mathematically, but that would also extend to any and all god claims that could be made as well. If infinities cannot exist, then god can't exist.

"Future-infinite sets have a beginning, but no end."

Which, from what we can tell, accurately describes what all the physics of this universe seem to indicate.

"Space-less, timeless, and changeless? It seems we agree that your god exists nowhere at no time and does nothing. The idea that positing any space-less, timeless, and changeless entity(god, pixies, dragons) gives us an answer is flat out wrong. The fact that god has so very many characteristics in common with the nothing theists claim we believe came from is hilarious."

You're going to have to demonstrate why it is flat out wrong to posit an unchanging, eternal being which has no physical form and does not endure through time (at least sans the Universe) as the cause of the Universe. Merely asserting such does not do anything to actually support what you're asserting.

"God can exist in nonexistence?"

God is not existing in nonexistence, for nonexistence is not something you can exist within. Rather, God does not exist in anything because God is not physical. It is the same with numbers. Numbers do not exist anywhere or anywhen, yet they still exist.

"If you can't provide how this is any different than magic, and can't show that it is actually possible or probable with actual physics, how is this any answer at all? Besides, I thought it was changeless, changeless things have no action at ALL, for an action would be a change."

Physics ends at the Big Bang, which means that the cause of the Universe will be supernatural by its very definition.
God is changeless only until He chooses to act to create, thus ending his changeless and timeless state. Agent causation (causation via act of intention) requires no antecedent conditions (like time) to happen, and so can happen spontaneously. The minute God chooses to act, He is no longer changeless.

"If infinities cannot exist, then god can't exist."

God is not infinite, so God can still exist.

"Which, from what we can tell, accurately describes what all the physics of this universe seem to indicate."

Yes, meaning we still require a cause from which the Universe was produced.

"You're going to have to demonstrate why it is flat out wrong to posit an unchanging, eternal being which has no physical form and does not endure through time (at least sans the Universe) as the cause of the Universe. Merely asserting such does not do anything to actually support what you're asserting."

Unchanging things can never act, for action(or even thought of action) requires change.

All of matter and energy is part of physics(I.E. the physical world), defining god as something without any of these properties makes him identical to nothing.

Eternal being ARE infinite, meaning they would have to transverse and infinity, the very problem you have with everything else.

Many of the statements you are making are incoherent logically, and the last just show that the entity that you are postulating doesn't get rid of any of the problems we would have with an external physical cause.

"God is not existing in nonexistence, for nonexistence is not something you can exist within."

So god doesn't exist in nothing? Good, tell me what it exists in then!

"Rather, God does not exist in anything because God is not physical. "

Ah, it still exists in nothing, good to know that it doesn't exist.

"It is the same with numbers. Numbers do not exist anywhere or anywhen, yet they still exist."

There was a time when numbers didn't exist, then they were created by humans. Numbers exist in the mind of humans, and the pages of our books(and even on our computers), but that is all. They will stop existing when the last thing with a written number rots away after the fall of man. Numbers are a human concept, and exist physically in my mind as a series of electrochemical impulses when I deal with them.

"Physics ends at the Big Bang, which means that the cause of the Universe will be supernatural by its very definition."

Sure, by the criterion of being a force or object beyond the nature of this universe, but not in the paranormal or magical sense.

"God is changeless only until He chooses to act to create, thus ending his changeless and timeless state. Agent causation (causation via act of intention) requires no antecedent conditions (like time) to happen, and so can happen spontaneously. The minute God chooses to act, He is no longer changeless."

This would also bar thought and consciousness. The god would basically be a nonexistent vegetable without the universe, for all intents and purposes.

"God is not infinite, so God can still exist."

Your god isn't omnipotent or omniscient, and also not eternal, then.

"Yes, meaning we still require a cause from which the Universe was produced."

Nope. Quantum fluctuations happen all the time without a cause.

"Unchanging things can never act..."

God is unchanging, not because He *cannot* act, be because He has freely willed to refrain from acting. Simply acting on His causal power to produce the Universe will end his changeless and timeless state.

"All of matter and energy is part of physics(I.E. the physical world), defining god as something without any of these properties makes him identical to nothing."

Numbers are not made of matter or energy, yet I would not equate numbers with nothing. God is not physical, this does not mean He is nothing.

"Eternal being ARE infinite, meaning they would have to transverse and infinity, the very problem you have with everything else."

"Eternal" does not mean to endure for an infinite amount of time, rather, it is synonymous with timeless, or not enduring through time. Without time, one cannot come into existence or go out of existence, so one will exist eternally.

"Ah, it still exists in nothing, good to know that it doesn't exist."

What do numbers exist in? Nothing. Don't numbers still exist?
What does love exist in? Nothing. Doesn't love still exist?
Not being physical does not make something automatically non-existent. This is a non-sequitur you're arguing for. Not being physical simply means not being physical. It entails not existing in anything because you are not physical to be "in" something. Secondarily, space did not exist without the Big Bang, meaning the cause will be non-physical by necessity ,as there is no space for it to exist within.

"Numbers exist in the mind of humans..."

This is not true, the physical representation of numbers was constructed by humans, but numbers as in the immaterial quantity exist objectively. There would still be eight planets in our solar system even if humans didn't exist.

"This would also bar thought and consciousness. The god would basically be a nonexistent vegetable without the universe, for all intents and purposes."

In a timeless state, God knows everything all at once, meaning it takes Him no time to know something, meaning He can still be conscious and have a will.

"Your god isn't omnipotent or omniscient, and also not eternal, then."

Omnipotent does not mean infinitely powerful, it means being able to do literally everything that is logically capable of being done.
Omniscient doesn't mean infinitely smart, it means holding every piece of knowledge that is capable of being held, and there is not an infinite amount of knowledge.
Eternality, as I've already said, does not mean enduring for an infinite amount of time, it means not enduring through time, and/or existing ceaselessly.

"Quantum fluctuations happen all the time without a cause."

Now this is simply to misconstrue what quantum mechanics is, and how causality operates at the quantum level of reality.

There is deterministic causation, where one can determine when the effect will be produced from the cause. Such as in water boiling, we can determine when the effect (water boiling) will be produced from the cause (212 degrees Fahrenheit), because water will always boil at said temperature.
Then there is indeterministic causation, where we cannot determine exactly when the effect will be produced from the cause, but a cause is still present. For instance, you cannot determine when a person will choose to stand up.

Quantum mechanics operates under indeterministic causation. Now, to get to the point, a quantum fluctuation does have a cause. The cause of the quantum virtual particle and its anti-particle pair coming into existence (the quantum fluctuation) is the fluctuation of the vacuum energy.

"God is unchanging, not because He *cannot* act, be because He has freely willed to refrain from acting."

I think you missed the point, changeless things cannot ever act, by definition. If something ever changes, then it isn't changeless.

"Simply acting on His causal power to produce the Universe will end his changeless and timeless state."

Then, according to you, he is not eternal or changeless.

"Numbers are not made of matter or energy, yet I would not equate numbers with nothing."

Numbers are abstract concepts that exist within the human mind, we assign these concepts certain values that correlate to physical properties inside of the universe as representations. If we destroyed every concept and representation of those properties, the physical properties would continue to exist, but numbers would not.

"God is not physical, this does not mean He is nothing."

It has no mass, energy, space, time, or value that appears to correspond to reality in any way. It is, quite literally, indistinguishable from nothing.

""Eternal" does not mean to endure for an infinite amount of time, rather, it is synonymous with timeless, or not enduring through time. Without time, one cannot come into existence or go out of existence, so one will exist eternally."

Actually, without time, nothing appears to exist at all. By all accounts, existence is a temporal condition, so your very correct when you say it transverses no time. Once again, you have marked your god indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

"What do numbers exist in?"

The mind.

Don't numbers still exist?

Yes, in the mind.

What does love exist in?

The mind.

Doesn't love still exist?

Yes, in the mind.

"Not being physical does not make something automatically non-existent."

Actually, no existing in reality at all makes something nonexistent, and you have continuously demonstrated that your god does not exist in reality in any way.

"This is a non-sequitur you're arguing for. Not being physical simply means not being physical. It entails not existing in anything because you are not physical to be "in" something."

Name a single nonphysical thing other than your god that does not exist in physical reality.

"Secondarily, space did not exist without the Big Bang, meaning the cause will be non-physical by necessity ,as there is no space for it to exist within."

What? Are you denying any possibility of a spacetime outside our own?

"This is not true, the physical representation of numbers was constructed by humans, but numbers as in the immaterial quantity exist objectively."

You have this backward, we constructed the immaterial value of numbers to correlate to quantities that exist, it is the physical representation of those constructs that exist objectively.

"There would still be eight planets in our solar system even if humans didn't exist."

No, the quantity of 8 is an assigned value, and would not exist in a universe devoid of any minds to assign it. We would only have an unspecified number of planets, for the value wouldn't be assigned, and not long ago you would have said there were 9. Who determined there were only 8 and not 9? We did, we assigned that value and change it, which completely undermines your argument in its entirety whether you realize it or not..

"In a timeless state, God knows everything all at once, meaning it takes Him no time to know something, meaning He can still be conscious and have a will."

No, consciousness requires active thought, which requires time.

"Omnipotent does not mean infinitely powerful, it means being able to do literally everything that is logically capable of being done."

This is not correct, omnipotent means unlimited power, if the power is limited then it isn't omnipotent.

"Omniscient doesn't mean infinitely smart, it means holding every piece of knowledge that is capable of being held, and there is not an infinite amount of knowledge."

Unlimited knowledge, if it does not possess unlimited knowledge than it isn't omniscient.

"Eternality, as I've already said, does not mean enduring for an infinite amount of time, it means not enduring through time, and/or existing ceaselessly."

Indeed, the way you define eternity is synonymous with nonexistence. The only thing that does not exist either infinitely or finitely is the nonexistent.

Seems to me that you should pick better vocabulary for your description, as so far you have argued that things shouldn't mean what they are defined to mean.

"Now this is simply to misconstrue what quantum mechanics is, and how causality operates at the quantum level of reality.

There is deterministic causation, where one can determine when the effect will be produced from the cause. Such as in water boiling, we can determine when the effect (water boiling) will be produced from the cause (212 degrees Fahrenheit), because water will always boil at said temperature.
Then there is indeterministic causation, where we cannot determine exactly when the effect will be produced from the cause, but a cause is still present. For instance, you cannot determine when a person will choose to stand up.

Quantum mechanics operates under indeterministic causation. Now, to get to the point, a quantum fluctuation does have a cause. The cause of the quantum virtual particle and its anti-particle pair coming into existence (the quantum fluctuation) is the fluctuation of the vacuum energy."

The fluctuation of the vacuum energy has no cause, it happens spontaneously without any efficient cause whatsoever.

"I think you missed the point, changeless things cannot ever act, by definition. If something ever changes, then it isn't changeless."

It must be you who is missing the point. Changeless means that something isn't undergoing any change, it is not defined as not being able to undergo change. If God is in a changeless state, then He is not undergoing any forms of change. IF God changes, then He is undergoing change and is no longer changeless.

"Then, according to you, he is not eternal or changeless."

Sans creation, God is changeless. God is eternal by literal ontological definition.

"Numbers are abstract concepts that exist within the human mind, we assign these concepts certain values that correlate to physical properties inside of the universe as representations. If we destroyed every concept and representation of those properties, the physical properties would continue to exist, but numbers would not."

Everything that you've said here is completely irrelevant. Numbers are still immaterial and do still exist regardless of.

"It has no mass, energy, space, time, or value that appears to correspond to reality in any way. It is, quite literally, indistinguishable from nothing."

God would have value that corresponds to reality, namely, having created it.

"Actually, without time, nothing appears to exist at all. By all accounts, existence is a temporal condition, so your very correct when you say it transverses no time. Once again, you have marked your god indistinguishable from the nonexistent."

Temporality is not required to hold existence. Existence can be held temporally or timelessly. Take numbers, for example. Numbers do not endure through time, yet they still exist.

""What do numbers exist in?"

The mind."

Wrong. Even if humans didn't exist, there would still be eight planets in our solar system. Your are conflating the physical representation of a quantity (number), with the actual quantity (number).

Actually, no existing in reality at all makes something nonexistent, and you have continuously demonstrated that your god does not exist in reality in any way."

Not existing within reality simply means not existing within reality. It is up to you to demonstrate that if something does not exist within reality, that it is therefore non-existent (which, by the way, is a non-sequitur fallacy because it does not logically follow that because something does not exist in reality therefore it is completely non-existent).

"Name a single nonphysical thing other than your god that does not exist in physical reality."

Numbers. And this time don't conflate numbers with physical representations of numbers (like the symbol "8", or the word "eight"). Numbers are immaterial (meaning they are not physical and so do not exist within physical reality), but can describe physical reality.

"What? Are you denying any possibility of a spacetime outside our own?"

Yes I am. All contemporary cosmogonic evidence is to the contrary. Secondarily, you would need to demonstrate that another form of spacetime exists separate from ours if you're going to assert such.

"You have this backward, we constructed the immaterial value of numbers to correlate to quantities that exist, it is the physical representation of those constructs that exist objectively."

Actually, you have it backwards, as I've already demonstrated in the very comment you're attempting to deconstruct.
Numbers (quantity) is an immaterial concept which exists separate from physical reality but can describe physical reality. Humans have constructed physical representations (symbols and words) to represent these immaterial quantities. And just to further prove that numbers are immaterial, what is the quantity 8 made of? What is its physical mass?

"No, the quantity of 8 is an assigned value, and would not exist in a universe devoid of any minds to assign it. We would only have an unspecified number of planets, for the value wouldn't be assigned, and not long ago you would have said there were 9. Who determined there were only 8 and not 9? We did, we assigned that value and change it, which completely undermines your argument in its entirety whether you realize it or not.."

"You're pretty much arguing that without humans, there would not be eight planets and one sun in our solar system.
You are sadly mistaken. Quantity (which is what is meant by "numbers") exist independently of human minds, which created physical representations of these quantities. In a Universe devoid of minds, there would still be 500 billion stars in our galaxy; it would not be an unspecified number of stars. However, there would be nobody around to ascribe a physical representation to the quantity "500 billion", but it would still be "500 billion". The term "500 billion" is the physical representation of the immaterial quantity of stars existing in our galaxy.

"No, consciousness requires active thought, which requires time."

Demonstrate that consciousness requires active thought. Funnily enough, you can't do it, and it's known as the "hard problem of consciousness". I could just as easily say that active thought requires consciousness, and you would be unable to objectively prove that wrong. Also, the observation of consciousness within time does not somehow limit it only to temporality. Just because something is observed to happen within time does not automatically exempt it from existing outside of time. You'd have to demonstrate that, and the oft-refuted contention that "I've never seen a timeless mind" isn't a refutation.

"This is not correct, omnipotent means unlimited power, if the power is limited then it isn't omnipotent."

Wrong, wrong, and yet again, wrong. "Omnipotent" is defined as being able to do everything that is logically capable of being done. God cannot create a square circle, and that does not somehow negate God as omnipotent, because the logically impossible cannot be done by anyone ever.

"Unlimited knowledge, if it does not possess unlimited knowledge than it isn't omniscient."

Yet another wrong statement. "Omniscience" is holding all possible knowledge. If there wasn't an unlimited amount of knowledge in existence, then you're arguing that any being which did hold all the possible knowledge would not be omniscient. This is simply wrong, said being would definitely be defined as omniscient.

"Indeed, the way you define eternity is synonymous with nonexistence. The only thing that does not exist either infinitely or finitely is the nonexistent."

You like to redefine your terms in an attempt to bolster your argument. In some senses, this is the fallacy of equivocation. "Eternal" means "ceaseless existence" or never not-existing. This is not synonymous with non-existence, which is never existing. If something was non-existent, then it couldn't be eternal.

"Seems to me that you should pick better vocabulary for your description, as so far you have argued that things shouldn't mean what they are defined to mean."

What is really happening here is you are consistently committing the fallacy of equivocation by redefining words to mean what they really don't mean in an attempt to bolster your argument. This entire comment is riddled with non-sequiturs, equivocation, and baseless assertions.

"The fluctuation of the vacuum energy has no cause, it happens spontaneously without any efficient cause whatsoever."

The reason the vacuum energy is under constant fluctuation is because the energy level of that vacuum energy is, as well, in constant flux due to the coming-into-being of the virtual particles and their anti-particle pairs.

"It must be you who is missing the point. Changeless means that something isn't undergoing any change, it is not defined as not being able to undergo change. If God is in a changeless state, then He is not undergoing any forms of change. IF God changes, then He is undergoing change and is no longer changeless."

You said god is changeless, yet you already have shown that it has changed, so is it really changeless?

"Everything that you've said here is completely irrelevant. Numbers are still immaterial and do still exist regardless of."

Numbers ARE conceptual, are you stating that your god is also conceptual?

"God would have value that corresponds to reality, namely, having created it."

Ho, what value then, what property of our physical reality does your god exist in? Mass? Energy? Time? Concepts? Language? I can see a definite argument that god exists as a concept and in language, but it has yet to be demonstrated that this synthetic proposition corresponds to reality, aside from your bald assertion that it created it. You cannot prove the existence of a thing by asserting that it does something, recognizing that that something exists, and then merely asserting that its existence is thus verified. Otherwise I could simply assert and define that gremlins break cars, recognize that there are indeed broken cars, and then assert that the existence of gremlins is thus verified by definition. It is, quite simply, and ad hoc rationalization.

"Temporality is not required to hold existence."

Can you demonstrate this as a fact?

"Existence can be held temporally or timelessly. Take numbers, for example."

Bad example, there was a time when the entire concept of "numbers" did not exist.

"Numbers do not endure through time, yet they still exist."

The concept of "numbers" did have a beginning. Your platonic view of the concept of "numbers" is very disingenuous, as it treats numbers as if they are immaterial timeless objects. They aren't. If there were such abstract mathematical objects, they would have to necessarily exist outside of spacetime, which would mean that we would not be able to apprehend them. However, the opposite appears to be true, all of these concepts exist solely within spacetime as far as we know, meaning that they are not the platonic objects that you treat them as. A number is a specified value, without a mind to specify it, the concept would appear to have no meaning or value whatsoever.

"Wrong. Even if humans didn't exist, there would still be eight planets in our solar system. Your are conflating the physical representation of a quantity (number), with the actual quantity (number)."

Once again, you are treating them as platonic objects, which makes no sense. If humans didn't exist, the number eight(or is it nine) would not exist, and the quantity(which is also a concept) wouldn't be specified.

"Not existing within reality simply means not existing within reality. It is up to you to demonstrate that if something does not exist within reality, that it is therefore non-existent (which, by the way, is a non-sequitur fallacy because it does not logically follow that because something does not exist in reality therefore it is completely non-existent)."

If something does not exist in reality, then it is unreal, meaning it is imaginary or fictitious.

"Numbers."

Appear to ONLY exist in physical reality.

"And this time don't conflate numbers with physical representations of numbers (like the symbol "8", or the word "eight"). Numbers are immaterial (meaning they are not physical and so do not exist within physical reality), but can describe physical reality."

Aha, so you claim that numbers transcend reality, demonstrate that outside a physical reality that numbers exist.

"Yes I am. All contemporary cosmogonic evidence is to the contrary."

Demonstrate that it is, indeed, impossible.

"Secondarily, you would need to demonstrate that another form of spacetime exists separate from ours if you're going to assert such."

I didn't assert anything, I asked if you denied the possibility, you made a positive claim.

"Actually, you have it backwards, as I've already demonstrated in the very comment you're attempting to deconstruct. Numbers (quantity) is an immaterial concept which exists separate from physical reality but can describe physical reality."

You have just asserted that numbers exist independent of what they represent, and would exist even if there were nothing for the concept to apply to at all, which is a really strange assertion. You are still treating them as if they are platonic objects that exist outside of reality, which cannot be demonstrated in the least, they appear to ONLY exist in reality.

"You're pretty much arguing that without humans, there would not be eight planets and one sun in our solar system."

Without a being capable of specifying a quantity, it literally loses all meaning, and it would simply be unspecified.

"You are sadly mistaken. Quantity (which is what is meant by "numbers") exist independently of human minds, which created physical representations of these quantities. In a Universe devoid of minds, there would still be 500 billion stars in our galaxy; it would not be an unspecified number of stars. However, there would be nobody around to ascribe a physical representation to the quantity "500 billion", but it would still be "500 billion". The term "500 billion" is the physical representation of the immaterial quantity of stars existing in our galaxy."

In every single supposed argument you make, quantity is SOLELY dependent on something to quantify, so in a situation where there can be to quantity it doesn't exist.

"Demonstrate that consciousness requires active thought. Funnily enough, you can't do it, and it's known as the "hard problem of consciousness". I could just as easily say that active thought requires consciousness, and you would be unable to objectively prove that wrong. Also, the observation of consciousness within time does not somehow limit it only to temporality. Just because something is observed to happen within time does not automatically exempt it from existing outside of time. You'd have to demonstrate that, and the oft-refuted contention that "I've never seen a timeless mind" isn't a refutation."

Oh, now it is actually worse than that. You have literally asserted that an immaterial mind(which cannot be demonstrated) can think(a process that requires both change and energetic/physical interaction) outside of time. Oh, wow, your claims are getting wilder by the minute.

"Wrong, wrong, and yet again, wrong. "Omnipotent" is defined as being able to do everything that is logically capable of being done. God cannot create a square circle, and that does not somehow negate God as omnipotent, because the logically impossible cannot be done by anyone ever."

After literally looking this up in about FIVE different dictionaries, you appear to be using a definition that isn't in any of them, they all seem to agree that it means unlimited power.

"Yet another wrong statement. "Omniscience" is holding all possible knowledge. If there wasn't an unlimited amount of knowledge in existence, then you're arguing that any being which did hold all the possible knowledge would not be omniscient. This is simply wrong, said being would definitely be defined as omniscient."

Same as above, you seem to be redefining these to suit your own purposes.

"You like to redefine your terms in an attempt to bolster your argument. In some senses, this is the fallacy of equivocation."

Oh, the irony, stop before you give me heavy-metal poisoning.

""Eternal" means "ceaseless existence" or never not-existing. This is not synonymous with non-existence, which is never existing. If something was non-existent, then it couldn't be eternal."

If something exists ceaselessly, then it exists forever, making it infinite by definition.

"What is really happening here is you are consistently committing the fallacy of equivocation by redefining words to mean what they really don't mean in an attempt to bolster your argument. This entire comment is riddled with non-sequiturs, equivocation, and baseless assertions."

Oh, yes, because YOU haven't made ANY bald assertions whatsoever. That was sarcasm in case you missed it, and the dictionary seems to be on MY side in this matter.

"The reason the vacuum energy is under constant fluctuation is because the energy level of that vacuum energy is, as well, in constant flux due to the coming-into-being of the virtual particles and their anti-particle pairs."

A good example of material causality, perhaps the universe has a material cause instead of an efficient one, as we have much better examples of material than efficient causality.

The best argument you've heard from a Christian is from VenomFangX?!? Sure we like to bash on theists here from time to time (including Christians) but that is a bit harsh, even for me!

I noticed they used PCS, but I tried to be objective regardless of source, but the fail was simply insurmountable...

The presenter starts with assumptions as though they are complete fact and goes from there. The conclusion at which he arrived was built on quicksand.

Concerning VenomFang's reasoning, you might want to watch Thunderf00t's series "Why People Laugh at Creationists" where he uses VenomFang's work(s) as an example: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

You might enjoy the one where VenomFang is forced to apologize to avoid litigation.

Oh, I've seen a few of the "Why People Laugh at Creationists", but I haven't seen the apology one... Should be funny!

Heres the apology to keep his ass out of court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4

thanks, just watched it. Wow; he must have really been in hot water to eat that much crow.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.