tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post2849992180321356066..comments2024-03-28T19:49:43.203-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: GOD TALK FINAL POST, WITH GUEST POST BY BRUCE AUNE INCORPORATEDRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-67727825048868030792013-04-13T20:00:42.302-04:002013-04-13T20:00:42.302-04:00Before my last post can be considered a complete a...Before my last post can be considered a complete argument, I must explain why the Universe and Time are finite and are part of creation...<br /><br />A. The Universe is finite because parts of it are finite, and it would be rediculous if parts of the Universe are finite but not its whole.<br /><br />B. Now we must discuss why time is finite. If the Universe were made up of an infinite amount of time, there would exist more of an infinite number of hours than an infinite number of days, since there are 24 hours to every day.<br /><br />C. However, there can only be one number for the infinite, since an infinite number of time would be that amount of time which has no greater amount of time. <br /><br />D. But an infinite amount of time would include both hours and days in it. So both hours and days in infinite time would be both an infinite amount of hours and days. This is impossible, however, since there are 24 hours to each day. Therefore, there only exists a finite amount of time in the Universe. Meaning, time and the Universe needed to be created by a First Cause: and this is what we know to be God.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-19910669824202756472013-04-13T17:00:42.712-04:002013-04-13T17:00:42.712-04:00Hopefully revised...
1. God must exist in reality...Hopefully revised...<br /><br />1. God must exist in reality, if he is that which nothing greater can be thought: since to exist in the human mind and in reality is greater than just existing in the human mind.<br /><br />2. However, if God just exists in the human mind, than he is that which something greater can be thought.<br /><br />3. And if God is that which something greater can be thought, the two greatest things that exist (which are greater than God), which both exist in the human mind, and in reality, are the Universe as a whole and Time itself.<br /><br />4. However, because the Universe and Time are finite in nature, they need a First Cause--which can only be God.<br /><br />5. However, this God must exist in reality, and not just in the human mind, or he would be the same God mentioned in #2--which is impossible.<br /><br />6. In conclusion, if you take the theist standpoint, God is proven to exist in reality, while if you take the atheist standpoint, God is also proven to exist in reality. However, when you take the atheist standpoint, God is proven to exist in reality more eloquently and more economically.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-91322370322445909212013-04-13T15:27:38.101-04:002013-04-13T15:27:38.101-04:001. God must exist in reality, if he is that which...1. God must exist in reality, if he is that which nothing greater can be thought: since to exist in reality and in the human mind is greater than just existing in the human mind.<br /><br />2. However, if God just exists in the human mind, than he is that which something greater can be thought.<br /><br />3. And if God just exists in the human mind, the two greatest things to exist (that are greater than God) in both the human mind and in reality are the Universe as a whole and Time itself.<br /><br />4. However, because the Universe and Time are finite in nature, they need a First Cause--which can only be God.<br /><br />In conclusion, if you take the theist standpoint, God is proven to exist, while if you take the atheist standpoint, God is also proven to exist. However, when you take the atheist standpoint, God is proven to exist more eloquently and more economically.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-13135472283623890042013-04-13T14:41:03.122-04:002013-04-13T14:41:03.122-04:00If God exists solely in the mind, he is that which...If God exists solely in the mind, he is that which something greater can be thought. And God would be less than everything greater than itself, including its finite creator: the human mind, which itself was created by something prior in time.<br /><br />And the greatest that which something is greater than God, must be the First Cause of the Universe, the First Cause of all time, and the First Cause of everything except itself. And we all know this to be God.<br /><br />Therefore, this God must exist in reality, and not just in the human mind, or he would be the same thing as the first God mentioned--which is impossible.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-27403414953375402562013-04-13T03:56:44.334-04:002013-04-13T03:56:44.334-04:00Introduction:
I do not know if this is a more pers...Introduction:<br />I do not know if this is a more persuasive version of my two previous posts; if it is not, do not pay any attention to it...<br /><br />If God exists solely in the mind, than he is that which something greater can be thought. And God woulld be less than everything greater than himself; including that which is greater than everything except itself; and that would be: that which nothing greater can be thought.<br /><br />And this, that which nothing greater can be thought, must be: the greatest perfection; the only infinite perfection; the source of all perfection; which is what we know God is.<br /><br />Therefore, this God must exist in reality, and not just in the mind, or he would be the same thing as the first God mentioned--which is a logical impossibility.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-55634969983464670712013-04-12T19:23:28.603-04:002013-04-12T19:23:28.603-04:00Re-written to be made clearer:
If God exists sole...Re-written to be made clearer:<br /><br />If God exists solely in the mind, than he is that which something greater can be thought.<br /><br />And the above definition will cycle through everything superior to it until it stops at: that thing which nothing greater can be thought--which is the end of that cycle.<br /><br />This: that which nothing greater can be thought, must be the greatest perfection, or the only perfection; which is what we all know to be God.<br /><br />However, this God must exist in reality, and not just in the mind, or he would be the same as the first God--which is impossible.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-26914591295814114142013-04-12T17:22:07.148-04:002013-04-12T17:22:07.148-04:00Try this argument I just thought up...
If God exi...Try this argument I just thought up...<br /><br />If God exists only in the mind, than God is that which something greater can be thought...<br /><br />However, if that is the case, the definition of God: that than which something greater can be thought, will cycle upwards through all those things that apply to being greater than God, until the definition is cancelled, when it reaches: that than which something greater cannot be thought--which is the end and top of the cycle.<br /><br />And the only thing the latter can be is the source of all perfection (or the only perfection): and this is what we all know to be God.<br /><br />And this God must exist in reality or it would be the same thing as the first God--which is impossible.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-51078803982502836652013-04-12T16:16:22.138-04:002013-04-12T16:16:22.138-04:00To sum up my last 3 posts:
If God is the only per...To sum up my last 3 posts:<br /><br />If God is the only perfection, than God is that which nothing greater can be thought; and he can never be that which something greater can be thought. So he must necessarilly exist, since if he exists in the mind he must necessarilly exist in reality, which is greater than just existing in the mind alone. For he is that than which nothing greater can be thought, and he can never be that than which something greater can be thought if he is the only perfection.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-90665725254358635362013-04-12T15:43:13.169-04:002013-04-12T15:43:13.169-04:00Sorry about the confusion...
What I meant to say ...Sorry about the confusion...<br /><br />What I meant to say was that only perfection and God are interchangeable terms. And that perfection does not include other terms like a perfect island, or perfect meal etc.. <br /><br />If God is the only perfection, than God cannot be that than which a greater can be thought, since he must include existence.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-46083148193305893642013-04-12T15:32:20.860-04:002013-04-12T15:32:20.860-04:00By the way...
I didn' t mean by not having pl...By the way...<br /><br />I didn' t mean by not having plural definitions of perfection that you could not say God is both omnipotent and that than which nothing greater can be thought. What I meant was that you could not include, with these definitions of perfection, opposite and contradictory definitions to those definitions which would be possible with more than one perfection in existence.<br /><br />Descartes saying: perfection includes existence, only works if God is the only perfection, which is what I believe to be true...Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8248145472422800132013-04-12T15:17:18.836-04:002013-04-12T15:17:18.836-04:00Although I thought I was done with my posts, I bel...Although I thought I was done with my posts, I believe I have left something unsaid that must be said...<br /><br />If God exists in the mind alone, than that which nothing greater can be thought is that which something greater can be thought: which Anselm says is obviously impossible but that is all he says...<br /><br />However, to solve this you must ask the question: Can that than which a greater can be thought be the definition of God?<br /><br />For if it can never be the definition of God than Anselm wins / while if it can be the definition of God than non-believers win...<br /><br />In my Platonic Dialogue #2, at my website, I say that there is only one perfection in existence which is God / And if my argument does hold up, than God can only be that than which nothing greater can be thought...<br /><br />How does that work? Well if there are plural definitions of perfection than there can be plural definitions of God, while if there is only one definition of perfection there is only one definition of God...<br /><br />So if you can figure out why there can be no such thing as a perfect island or perfect car or anything else perfect except for God (which is what the monk Gaunilo writes against) than Anselm's argument wins...Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-54361175409827704532013-04-11T22:15:28.135-04:002013-04-11T22:15:28.135-04:00Dr. Wolff,
I'm sorry for messing up your blog...Dr. Wolff,<br /><br />I'm sorry for messing up your blog. I was having fun this entire time until I began to realize that my lack of skill in logic has brought me to an impasse. Although you may have been busy these last couple of days off the internet, I thank you for my being able to post stuff on your blog.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-66457960482565566182013-04-11T22:04:59.423-04:002013-04-11T22:04:59.423-04:00You might ask:
Why can't you just say...
But...You might ask:<br /><br />Why can't you just say...<br /><br />But God does not exist in reality, therefore God only exists in the mind?<br /><br />Because this will pop up: God is that which something greater can be thought,<br /><br />after you say But God does not exist in reality.<br /><br />And if that doesn't pop up than this will still be part of the argument: God is that which nothing greater can be thought<br /><br />And you can see the contradiction in that.<br /><br />For if you put this argument last:<br /><br />God is that which something greater can be thought,<br /><br />It's not fit to be last since its counter argument:<br /><br />God is that which nothing greater can be thought<br /><br />was the first primary premise in the original argument.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-2093138657212209992013-04-11T21:43:26.226-04:002013-04-11T21:43:26.226-04:00There is really more to my previous logic than mee...There is really more to my previous logic than meets the eye...<br /><br />Theist version:<br /><br />If it is light, it is day,<br /><br />If God is that which nothing greater can be thought (and God exists in the mind), then God exists in reality.<br /><br />But it is light, so it is day.<br /><br />But God is that which nothing greater can be thought (and God exists in the mind), so God does exist in reality.<br /><br />Atheist version:<br /><br />If it is light, it is day,<br /><br />If God is that which nothing greater can be thought (and God exists in the mind), then God exists in reality.<br /><br />But it is not day, therefore it is not light.<br /><br />But God does not exist in reality, therefore God is that which something greater can be thought (and God therefore only exists in the mind).<br /><br /><br />To conclude<br /><br />The atheist argument is a counter argument to the first argument no matter what. So when you change (God is that which no greater can be thought) to God is that which something greater can be thought, you have no grounds for saying God only exists in the mind as a conclusion, since you are using a flank attack and are not arguing the problem head on. So if you alter a premise in the original argument you will end up with a faulty conclusion.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-52052356027428178172013-04-11T19:45:41.233-04:002013-04-11T19:45:41.233-04:00For an above post...
I wrote:
--Light is God is ...For an above post...<br /><br />I wrote:<br /><br />--Light is God is that which no greater can exist.<br /><br />I meant to say:<br /><br />--Light is: God is that which no greater can be thoughtMichael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36015915624280297262013-04-11T19:40:46.279-04:002013-04-11T19:40:46.279-04:00For my above posts...
The theist argument creates...For my above posts...<br /><br />The theist argument creates a constructive syllogism while the atheist argument creates a destructive syllogism. So the atheist argument cancels itself out while the theist argument is self supporting.<br /><br />Remember, 'It is light', or 'God is that which no greater can be thought' must be valid at all times for the argument to work consistently and economically pro or con.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-19983822351137073092013-04-11T16:11:24.846-04:002013-04-11T16:11:24.846-04:00Parallel logic for my above posts...
Theist ontol...Parallel logic for my above posts...<br /><br />Theist ontological argument:<br /><br />If it is light, it is day,<br />But it is light, so it is day.<br /><br />--So both God is that which nothing greater can be thought & God exists in the mind so he must exist in reality as well are logically fluent.<br /><br />Atheist ontological argument:<br /><br />If it is light, it is day.<br />It's not day, so its not light.<br /><br />--Light is God is that which nothing greater can exist. So Day is God also exists in reality.<br /><br />--Not Day is God exists only in the mind (and God is that which something greater can be thought) & therefore Not Light is: God is not that which nothing greater can be thought.<br /><br />However, for the atheist argument to work, the second sentence must be in league with the first sentence, and this is what the atheist logic fails to do, since the second sentence destroys the first sentence. Both sentences need to survive too support both the theist and atheist positions. And only the theist logic does so.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-35993311874816708582013-04-11T15:35:37.546-04:002013-04-11T15:35:37.546-04:00To further clarify my previous posts, I will try t...To further clarify my previous posts, I will try to write the following...<br /><br />In the last part of the atheist version of the ontological argument, the definition for God: 'God is that which something greater can be thought' cancels out the definition: 'God is that which nothing greater can be thought' (at the beginning of the argument) since the assumption: 'God only exists in the mind', at the very end of the atheist argument, simply implies: 'God is that which something greater can be thought'. <br /><br />So you could say the atheist version of the ontological argument is not logically consistent from beginning to end. However, the theist version of the ontological argument is logically consistent because its ending doesn't alter the first part of the ontological argument, which is: 'God is that which nothing greater can be thought'.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-16538979104724672942013-04-11T07:10:27.350-04:002013-04-11T07:10:27.350-04:00Theology and it's counterfeit 'proofs'...Theology and it's counterfeit 'proofs' now look set for oblivion. For what philosophy and religion, not to mention the rest of us, thought impossible has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith and it's spreading on the web. <br /><br />The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!<br /><br />Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search to discover this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our flawed human moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk,goliahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484401523720233875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8495836625191800832013-04-10T15:38:25.227-04:002013-04-10T15:38:25.227-04:00I thought up this logical formula to better explai...I thought up this logical formula to better explain my points:<br /><br />A = God is that which nothing greater can be thought.<br /><br />Theist: A + God exists in the mind, so he must exist in reality; therefore, A is logically kept and still logically holds and the logic is still logically consistent.<br /><br />Atheist: A + God exists only in the mind, so God doesn't exist in reality, therefore, A is cancelled out because God is now something which something greater can be thought, and so A doesn't logically hold and so the argument is not logically consistent.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-85258858674834653562013-04-09T05:08:19.698-04:002013-04-09T05:08:19.698-04:00I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to ...I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to dispatch the argument by just rejecting the notion that someone can hold the notion S in their head: i.e. you can construct the sentence saying something is greater than anything else, but that's not the same as actually believing it and treating it as a given. Because the argument proceeds by proof by contradiction, something that was originally assumed makes the argument inconsistent, and since the logic is assumed correct, it must be one of the assumptions that is wrong. The argument insists that the only possible place this incorrect assumption could be is the notion that you can think about something greater than everything else, but that this object doesn't actually exist. Why not just use the argument as proof that you can't actually think very clearly about God in a logical sense?<br /><br />In short, this is an issue with comprehension - something that has killed a lot of formal systems in the past (cf naïve set theory and Frege's work before Russell got to it). On its face, it would seem to me that the reason it isn't a proof of God's existence isn't bad logic, but the notion that holding an idea in our head has anything to do with existence. I can think about Pegasus as being the best winged horse possible, but that doesn't mean Pegasus actually exists: ordinary language can deal with inconsistencies without any issue, so you don't need special axioms of comprehension to make sentences - you can just say any old thing and proceed from there. Formal logic, not so much.<br /><br />Further, I think a conversation about God is probably not possible in logic - the idea of God is too big to be held by consistency requirements - and any notion of omnipotence escapes the constraints of consistency, so that's going to break a lot of logical machinery. After all, think about the inconsistency theorems - there's more truth in the world than logic will allow us to reach with any set of axioms we can think up. It's a bit presumptuous to think that you can pin down God with some logic when you know that there's a lot of basic truth about simple numbers you couldn't find with logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-4151739213168352512013-04-09T00:41:07.236-04:002013-04-09T00:41:07.236-04:00Someone may ask: why are the above different defin...Someone may ask: why are the above different definitions so important?<br /><br />My answer is: it is important because the theist is being consistent in his logic while the atheist isn't.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-31711174676943271882013-04-09T00:17:24.260-04:002013-04-09T00:17:24.260-04:00To make the above more clear: the theist keeps the...To make the above more clear: the theist keeps the original definition but the atheist doesn't.<br /><br />C. Definition: God is that which nothing greater can be thought.<br /><br />Theist: God exists in the mind so he must also exist in reality. (This statement keeps the original definition.)<br /><br />Atheist: God only exists in thought. (Now the C. Definition has changed. It doesn't keep the original definition. The definition has now changed to God is that which something greater can be thought. The definition had to change to support the atheist position.)Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29717392156232143012013-04-08T21:36:45.880-04:002013-04-08T21:36:45.880-04:00Perhaps if you change Anselm's chapter 3 in hi...Perhaps if you change Anselm's chapter 3 in his Proslogion, and realize it is in error, that you can have more equal ground for C.<br /><br />In 2010-2011, I wrote on my website against chapter 3 of the Proslogion:<br /><br />"Which is greater? A God that is so great that he cannot be thought not to exist, or a God that is so great that he can be thought to not exist?<br /><br />Obviously, the latter is the greater God, since his existence is not dependent on human thoughts and awareness."<br /><br />So if you accept the above, there will be more equal ground between believers and atheists for C.<br /><br />Now a theist may say, in defense of his side, that he is not changing any definition to prove that God exists but the atheist is. His definition of God is: God is that which nothing greater can exist, while when the atheist says this and also God only exists in the mind, he is changing the definition to God is that which something greater can exist.<br /><br />So when I say God exists both in mind and in reality, I am not altering the original definition, but the atheist is for his argument.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-21738105898854069712013-04-08T14:56:04.007-04:002013-04-08T14:56:04.007-04:00By the way, I finished my 4 dialogues last year, s...By the way, I finished my 4 dialogues last year, so I am not stealing anyone's ideas.Michael Llenoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05689105280485818465noreply@blogger.com