jamest wrote:

redwhine wrote:

jamest wrote:Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything, and not merely a finite being.

Therefore that god cannot exist. If it existed, it would be part of everything, but it would have had to pre-exist in order to create itself.

Can we all go home now?

No, sit down. Every thing is a reference to what is created, not to what already exists (God).

So, if everything needs a creator, who or what created god if god (who created everything, remember) didn't create itself?

jamest wrote:No, as mere mortals have the capacity to accept simple reasoning such as "if God is the totality of existence, then nothing else can exist".

Are you god, jamest? If not, you don't exist.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:But you jamest do not hold to your own conception above when it comes to god. You separate him out as the xtians do as the experiencer of the world or experience. You have two things. You always have two things. There can be only One.

An exercise in consistently conceptualising God has nothing to do with what you think I always do.

But it does have to do with you answering to this issue here jimmy. You do make that separation seemingly out of the blue. Now logical deduction has this little diddy called entailment. Premises have a relationship. They can't just appear out of nowhere, disjoint and random.

Does an exercise in conceptualising infinity have anything to do with what I do in my life? No. The same principle applies for the conceptualisation of anything. Logic doesn't care what I do with my life.

I was following you until you got to god experiencing things. Did he tell you that or what?

It's merely a logical consequence that if God exists (omnipresent), then nothing else can, requiring that everything else be an experience happening to God.

Again. Why an experience?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:
It's merely a logical consequence that if God exists (omnipresent), then nothing else can, requiring that everything else be an experience happening to God.

Again. Why an experience?

Because experienced things are not real-in-themselves, having a reductive explanation in the ~thing~ having the experiences. Note that this is true even for 'the brain'.

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
More grumpiness. Look, it doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't know about God's experiences. What matters is that if God exists then nothing else can (omnipresence), so that all else could only be an experience.

This is merely an exercise of conceptualisation, Regina. Please wake up to what's going on here.

Bollocks. Or are you no longer a "rational solipsist"?

It matters not one jot what I am. I could be my next door neighbour's hamster - it has no bearing upon whether the OP is consistent.

jamest wrote:No, as mere mortals have the capacity to accept simple reasoning such as "if God is the totality of existence..."

... so the fuck what? But never mind. You still have to explain how you figured out what the purpose of existence is. Without referring to scripture.

jamest wrote:What matters is that if God exists then nothing else can (omnipresence), so that all else could only be an experience.

Well, that's like saying that if the totality of existence exists, then nothing else can. What has that to do with God?

jamest wrote:

Fallible wrote:

jamest wrote:

OlivierK wrote:James. In that other thread, you claimed that god (as opposed to the FSM) was indivisible into components, and also that everything that existed was part of god. If you, and me and every other object is part of god, the how is god not a "fragmented entity"?

Again, here:


... if God's existence depends upon nothing else existing, then 'the world' cannot exist except as an experience happening to God. Of course, being human is integral to that experience, which means the experience of being any particular human must also be something that is happening to God. Therefore, for philosophy, God can only make sense if man and God are one and the same thing.
I see no reason why a mind (the mind of God) could not have numerous experiences of being [something/someone].

Oh, I seeeeeee. So when you say your concept of God is consistent with reason, what you mean is that when your god and reason fall short of each other, you bridge the gap with "I don't see why not".

The point is to find defining qualities of God which are consistent with reason - and reject those which are inconsistent with reason. There is nothing inconsistent with reason (as far as I can see) about the mind of God having numerous experiences. If you reject that claim (if you can think of any inconsistencies), then you need to explain why. Your post here amounts to nothing other than grumpiness.

And your post amounts to nothing other than an argument from personal incredulity. This means you've lost.

Fallible wrote:

jamest wrote:
The point is to find defining qualities of God which are consistent with reason - and reject those which are inconsistent with reason. There is nothing inconsistent with reason (as far as I can see) about the mind of God having numerous experiences. If you reject that claim (if you can think of any inconsistencies), then you need to explain why. Your post here amounts to nothing other than grumpiness.

And your post amounts to nothing other than an argument from personal incredulity. This means you've lost.

Being unable to find a reason to reject X, means that X is consistent with reason until a reason emerges to reject X. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

jamest wrote:

Paul wrote:

jamest wrote:Only philosophy can prove or disprove the existence of a God that is not a nonsensical concept.

So only philosophers can really know about god, and mere mortals have to take it on faith.

No, as mere mortals have the capacity to accept simple reasoning such as "if God is the totality of existence, then nothing else can exist".

There's no rocket science being used here.

If it's only simple reasoning, then it's not philosophy. Make your mind up.

Here's some more simple reasoning.
If God is not the totality of existence, but is instead a flawed, made-up concept, then it has no relevance to anything that does exist.

Cito di Pense wrote:You still have to explain how you figured out what the purpose of existence is. Without referring to scripture.

I don't have to explain that here. I only have to explain why God must have a purpose (regardless of what that purpose is), and that was already explained to you in the other thread.

jamest wrote:What matters is that if God exists then nothing else can (omnipresence), so that all else could only be an experience.

Well, that's like saying that if the totality of existence exists, then nothing else can. What has that to do with God?

The thread is an exercise in consistently conceptualising God, not in proving that 'it' exists. You can breathe a little easier.

Declaring something as true based solely on you not being able to see otherwise is an argument from personal incredulity. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Paul wrote:

jamest wrote:

Paul wrote:

jamest wrote:Only philosophy can prove or disprove the existence of a God that is not a nonsensical concept.

So only philosophers can really know about god, and mere mortals have to take it on faith.

No, as mere mortals have the capacity to accept simple reasoning such as "if God is the totality of existence, then nothing else can exist".

There's no rocket science being used here.

If it's only simple reasoning, then it's not philosophy. Make your mind up.

It's only philosophy if the reasoning is difficult to follow?

Here's some more simple reasoning.
If God is not the totality of existence, but is instead a flawed, made-up concept, then it has no relevance to anything that does exist.

Yes, that's valid.

jamest wrote:

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
More grumpiness. Look, it doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't know about God's experiences. What matters is that if God exists then nothing else can (omnipresence), so that all else could only be an experience.

This is merely an exercise of conceptualisation, Regina. Please wake up to what's going on here.

Bollocks. Or are you no longer a "rational solipsist"?

It matters not one jot what I am. I could be my next door neighbour's hamster - it has no bearing upon whether the OP is consistent.

Bollocks again. As a "rational solipsist" you adhere to the definition of "god" I quoted earlier in the other thread.
Every single utterance you make here is the word of god, quite literally. It matters not one jot if the OP is consistent or not.
God can make it whatever she wants, all your arguing here is redundant.

jamest wrote:It's only philosophy if the reasoning is difficult to follow?

It was a flippant remark based on the numerous times I have seen wannabe philosophers talking down to non-philosophers because they haven't read enough <insert some ancient Greek guy> or don't understand some -ism or other.

Fallible wrote:Declaring something as true based solely on you not being able to see otherwise is an argument from personal incredulity. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

That would be correct IF I had said that God is "true" based upon its consistent conceptualisation. But I haven't said that. In fact, I've explicitly stated - several times - that this is an exercise in defining God with qualities that are consistent with reason (with qualities that reason cannot reject outright, like God is a square-circle).

So, if God, then:

a) Omnipresent (for reasons given). Then:

b) Nothing else but God can exist. Then:

c) 'Everything else' must be an experience being had by God (having a reductive explanation in God). Then:

d) God must be capable of having numerous experiences (assuming other people/animals have experiences). And, there is no reason to reject this possibility. Therefore:

e) There is no reason to reject omnipresence as a defining-concept of God.

jamest wrote:this is an exercise in defining God with qualities that are consistent with reason (with qualities that reason cannot reject outright, like God is a square-circle).

So, if God, then:

a) Omnipresent (for reasons given). Then:

b) Nothing else but God can exist. Then:

c) 'Everything else' must be an experience being had by God (having a reductive explanation in God). Then:

d) God must be capable of having numerous experiences (assuming other people/animals have experiences). And, there is no reason to reject this possibility. Therefore:

e) There is no reason to reject omnipresence as a defining-concept of God.

It's really no wonder you want to stick to conceptualising God instead of explaining why to call the totality of existence something besides the totality of existence. Existence is only a documentation of some stuff that is possible, and imagining what else might be possible is an exercise in fantasy. Omnipresence is not sufficient for deity. Omnipresence is just what the totality of existence displays. See also, metaphysics of presence. It's in wikipedia, as I've reminded you before.

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
More grumpiness. Look, it doesn't matter what I would or wouldn't know about God's experiences. What matters is that if God exists then nothing else can (omnipresence), so that all else could only be an experience.

This is merely an exercise of conceptualisation, Regina. Please wake up to what's going on here.

Bollocks. Or are you no longer a "rational solipsist"?

It matters not one jot what I am. I could be my next door neighbour's hamster - it has no bearing upon whether the OP is consistent.

Bollocks again. As a "rational solipsist" you adhere to the definition of "god" I quoted earlier in the other thread.
Every single utterance you make here is the word of god, quite literally. It matters not one jot if the OP is consistent or not.
God can make it whatever she wants, all your arguing here is redundant.

You type a lot of emotive shit like this. Firstly, I'm not a solipsist. Secondly, it makes no difference to the OP what
I am. 1 + 1 = 2 is universally correct, as is [say] the statement:

If X is omnipresent, then nothing else exists (only X exists).

If you cannot apply yourself to logical concerns here without letting your negative preconceptions of me get the better of you, then I suggest that you get yourself a bag of popcorn and leave this discussion to the rationalists amongst us.

jamest wrote:Firstly, I'm not a solipsist.

As documented by Regina, you've described yourself as a rational solipsist. What's changed? Your shifting of the goalposts is the only constant in your stream of crap.

jamest wrote:
My philosophy embraces the notion that "Only my mind exists". Clearly, that makes me a solipsist. Clearly, what is at stake here is how one utilises the concepts of mind/self in formulating one's opinion of solipsism. Evidently, as explained, the prevalent utilisation of these concepts has been erroneous, meaning that the common opinion of solipsism is flawed and thus open to revision.

Lets call the universe "God", because calling it "The Universe" is so passe. Now what?

jamest wrote:Thus, it follows that for the conception of God to be coherent, that it must be the creator of everything,

Actually, that's the most contradictory of principles. As soon as you define your deity as the creator of everything, you define it out of existence, because in order to create, it must exist, and could therefore only ever be a subset of, and contingent upon, existence.

Good work James, you just fucked up your own magic man.