1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. In some possible world, morality exists and nonconciousness doesn't exist. (Premise)
7. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 6)
8. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 7)
9. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
10. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
11. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
12. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
13. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
14. Purpose is good or evil. (Premise)
15. Good and evil are objective. (From 12 and 14)
16. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
17. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 16)
18. Morality is objective. (From 15 and 17)
19. Consciousness is objective. (8 and 18)
20. Knowledge is objective. (From 19 and 24)
21. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
22. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
23. Agency is objective. (From 22)
24. Objectively absent things don't exist. (Premise)
25. Therefore, God exists. (From 13, 15, 20, 23, and 24)
Proof God exists
Other urls found in this thread:
solarmythology.com
twitter.com
Consciousness is not defined, your arguement fails at it's beginning.
What.
Irrelevant. See Principle of Charity, or must all words be defined in every argument?
I'm to stupid to get this shit but this autism impresses me.
Also, if god exists, he must be an absolute autist so it matches.
This is the most autistic thread ive ever seen
Now the question is. Which God is the "true" God.
> Does all words have to be precisely and thoroughly defined in an argument about the very nature of existence?!
Yep. Intellectual integrity and scrupulousness demands the clearest expression in this most mysterious of subject.
It is fallacious to reject an argument due to supposedly ambiguous definitions. See Continuum Fallacy. Besides, there's really no way to define consciousness without using a tautology.
>No way to define consciousness without tautology
And you don't think that problem is relevant to describing an absolute truth? If you have an undefined concept, then you have a flaw in your argument. Either create a better definition of consciousness, and state that definition in your proof, or don't use it.
You're new to this, aren't you?
I'm not rejecting the argument on the grounds of 'supposedly ambigous' definitions, but on the grounds of 'totally lacking of' definitions. There is no firm wall without a strong brick, there is no argument without clear definitions.
Shhh.
I'm drunk and do this for the lulz.
But don't tell anyone!
Of course God exists. Don't allow some godless country like Sweden or Finland bother you with their atheist non sense.
lmao even jesus wasn't real.
1. God exists
2. Therefore God exists
I saved u some time, user.
>objectively absent things dont exist
>there only exist conscious and nonconscious(absence of conscious(
Well, the ultimate inference here is that consciousness objectively exists (among other things), therefore God exists. To reject that inference on grounds of ambiguously defined "consciousness," is equivalent to rejecting God's existence if He is ambiguously defined. It is fallacious thinking. You can request elaboration on definitions, but to outright reject an argument because something's definition isn't satisfactory to you, is simply fallacious, and really just a deflection tactic. You can use google's definition of "consciousness" here, if you honestly can't think of what is meant by the word. If you're still unsatisfied, take note that you can use this same tactic to be unsatisfied with literally -any- argument. The principle of charity and the continuum fallacy accord my argument to be just fine, and indeed, valid.
The definitions are obviously implicit. I won't quibble with you about not defining "consciousness" for you. Google the definition.
at is also fallacious us ambiguously defined terms for an argument
Also i disagree with the way you define evil. Why could I not define goodness as the absence of evil?
i'm an atheist but Jesus is one of the most recorded individuals in history., he was certainly a person
Oh? What fallacy is that, exactly? What's stopping you from saying all definitions are ambiguous?
>i'm an atheist but Jesus is one of the most recorded individuals in history
Just like god is.
Many many people have heard his voice, witnessed his acts.
and yet not a single shred of verifiable evidence in thousands of years of recorded history
doesn't necessarily apply to this but in law usage of ambiguous terms will be interpreted in a way that will benefit the party that didn't state the terms
Read Aquinas
>nonsense can exist, therefore all words must be explicitly defined upon use
>19. Consciousness is objective. (8 and 18)
this doesnt follow from 8 and 18 but its correct anyway
>22. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
>23. Agency is objective. (From 22)
FALSE or your argument is so weak that you only prove that there are objective rules everyone must obey in order to be concious witch no sane person qould question.
I am witnessing God every day. He keeps telling me that christians are cancer.
Why?
>6. In some possible world, morality exists and nonconciousness doesn't exist. (Premise)
LMAO, what? Nice double negative. Also, that's not a premise, it's an observation.
>muh double negative
That only works with your stoner friends. One cannot observe a possible world in which nonconciousness exists.
Sorry, doesn't* exist.
25. Therefore, God exists. (From 13, 15, 20, 23, and 24
Found the problem
why what?
It just doesnt follow if you mean an actual entity.
The premise is false, its not based on anything.
how are good and evil objective? thats a very cultural based thing.
Because they are predicated on consequences, which are objective
Some premises have to be axiomatic. By "agency" I essentially mean "power." I don't really care to go beyond the premise being self-evident, but if you make a claim like "FALSE," you must explain yourself or it doesn't mean anything. "It just is," isn't an explanation.
Sup ID brother.
Jesus is literally the sun. His story is an allegory for farmers.
I thought that was daylight savings time
AN EXPLANATION OF THE FABLE, IN WHICH THE SUN
IS WORSHIPPED UNDER THE NAME OF CHRIST.
By Charles François Dupuis (1798)
solarmythology.com
>11. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning.
Does it?
Consequence just implies action and reaction. At least Objective Consequence.
Meaning is added by humans, making it unobjective
Therefore unobjective, significant consequences implies meaning.
Unobjective meaning implies purpose.
Therefore, good and evil and unobjective.
And just replace objecive with unobjective from then on.
Unironicaly the worst interpretation of The Bible.
that partially follows from the existence of objective significance.
Perhaps I'll post this again when I'm less distracted by 'Expanse' (meh show) and more willing to argue.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
An absolutely useless posting.
God demands unquestioning, blind obedience. Logic comforts those of weak faith while blind faith is all powerful.
No matter what science of philosophy says if it conflicts with the bible you throw it away. Why prove God exists if by blind faith you already know he exists, and by blind faith you know your doctrine is correct?
You're saying it isn't useful to prove God exists, even to unbelievers?
Not a proof at all but theories
How does objective consciousness definitively prove the existence of God?
What am I missing?
>What am I missing?
the rest of the argument
F A K E
A N D
G A Y
I dont really know what there is to explain.
If by agency you mean power then your whole argumentation means as much as
"there are certain rules concious beings should obey to have a good outcome"
But thats obvious.
If that is God to you and nothing else we basicly have the same faith, pic related.
And atheism would be absolutly insane going by your definitions.
I define the main Gods as charachteristics and aspects of life such as war, property, fertility etc.
And all the spirutal stuff like thoughts manifesting themselves etc. seems to be one of the God itself and its a matter of faith.
While I do not know how exactly this works.
there is a lot of racemixing in the future.
what?
How is this related?
The evidence is written accounts, which happens to be 80% of the evidence of 70% of history
Before you many have attempted to prove the existence of God with such rational argumentations. Theirs were more sophisticated than yours. Anselm, Descartes etc.
Yet, as Kant showed, this is impossible.
The problem is,
human rationality is bound by the categories of time and location. God is not bound by them. Our rationality cannot encompass God, Who is greater.
To conclude,
Greater is God.
Instead of "proofs", there are "signs" for the existence of God for those who think.
I don't understand how you came to your summation. the argument was originally just going to show that objective morality exists, but once i did that, i figured, why not show the main 3 defininitive properties of God to objectively exist, and thus conclude God exists? it tries to show objective goodness, objective knowledge, and objective power to conclude God exists. admittedly it's a bit of a meme argument, too convoluted on its own not to be an essay or something, especially for explanation of the stand-alone or partially stand-alone premises. otherwise, I think it's pretty concrete, as one can't just say "hurrr that's false" without explanation.
>defininitive
Nice try jewish
o o
========>
(_________)
The greatest and most obvious sign is yourself. Ask yourself from where you have come and to where you are going. Follow this question (it's actually one single question) as you follow the white rabbit about other issues. You will inevitably find God.
I actually think everyone knows God exists - He is too great not to be apparent even to the most cynical - and that everyone who says He doesn't exist, is lying.
>Ask yourself from where you have come
My woman's cunt after a long generation of men in my family did the same thing to repeat the process for thousands of years.
> to where you are going
I am going to eventually die and most likely be buried or cremated then placed in a lot preferably in my own hometown to slowly decompose and go back to the earth.
O zaman allahi kim yaratti amina kodugumun oglu
Yes, some argue this. I am not sure however. I think there are some really persuaded atheists. Perhaps they are lying to themselves, too. Difficult to say.
>Using several undefinable terms in your argument
Into the trash it goes
...
That's your body. But you are more than your body, aren't you?
He asks me in Turkish "Who craeted God?" with some added atheistic "emotivity".
The answer is actually a simple one. The concept of "God" implies nobody created Him. Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
didnt you read this and why did you write this
>Using several undefinable terms in your statement
Into the trash it goes
because you came to a non sequitorial summary, which implies you don't understand it. I'm also trying to stop autistically tracking this thread as I'm missing muh shows.
>That's your body. But you are more than your body, aren't you?
My body is all i have once my brain goes i am a goner since conciousness is dependent on me living to exist (meaning my heart must beat and my brain must be functional to be conciousness).
My body is it as there is no evidence there is anything beyond bodies life wise (meaning no soul or magic bullshit).
Say, in roach language, that one cannot infer from the necessity of a creator that there is no creator.
lel "Who created God?" is self-refuting.
There is nothing that cannot be defined in my statement.
>Using several undefinable terms in your statement
Into the trash it goes
>n-no u
>christfag arguments
>tons of premises
>no definitions whatsoever
Yeah, sorry but you didn't prove shit.
appeal to hypocrisy? It's simply using your own fallacious argument against you as a reduction to absurdity.
I am sick of this freshman-tier reasoning. You might as well just cover your ears and start showing "i don't understaaaand you i don't understaaaand you"
shouting* obviously
There was nothing fallacious about my argument, every word I used was definable where as yours wasn't so now you're trying to make up any bullshit reason you can to avoid responding. You cannot define consciousness, good and evil, or morality so your argument is shit. Fuck off retard.
Ok if you want to believe this way. But you can still not explain from where you came. I mean, your mother gave birth to you and her mother to her and her mother to her and her mother to her........ mother of n to mother of n-1
but who gave birth to n?
>what is principle of charity
>what is a continuum fallacy
I can't argue with someone who so grossly misunderstands the fundamentals, so I guess your deflection tactic has worked, which, btw, can be used against literally any argument. Stay ignorant, faggot.
>b-but *reasserts self*
>what is appeal to assertion fallacy
I don't have time for this.
Whether you believe in God or not, if you use the concept of "God", you can't ask the question "Who created God?".
>Ok if you want to believe this way
No it is not that i want to believe this way but this way is the most evident without turning to magical solutions like religion which are not backed by evidence.
>But you can still not explain from where you came
I come from a long line of Evolution that spans back millions of years to the current day.
>but who gave birth to n?
You mean the first life form of them all or the first mammal? Evolution explains the first mammal and when it comes to the first life form i just don't know but i admit i don't know.
>Using words you don't understand
Continuum fallacy only works when you have two definable states which you do not have. If for instance you wanted to claim there is a difference between the conscious and nonconscious you have to define both terms and show they are different which you cannot.
Principle of charity isn't an argument either it just says someone should try to be unbiased and give the speaker the benefit of the doubt when evaluating an argument. Your argument hinges on the definitions of these ideas, you cannot handwave them away.
Evolution, like its name suggests, only explains (or claims to explain) the transition from some form to another form. Not what happened before.
Those both apply to the fact the definitions of the words in my argument are implicit. They can easily be looked up on google. The continuum fallacy is bitching about definition never being precise enough because there is an infinite number of possible definitions. The principle of charity tells you to assume definitions that would make the argument valid. It is you who lack understanding, clearly. You apparently did not learn very much in your quick googling of those terms. "Consciuosness" is no more undefined than every single word you've used.
I would be lying if I didn't say your persistent stupidity is aggravating.
Google definitions don't fucking cut it. Good and evil are only defined by their relation to morality and vice versa. Neither is truly defined. Same with consciousness except they use awareness instead.
>The continuum fallacy is bitching about definition never being precise enough because there is an infinite number of possible definitions
No that is an oversimplification. The continuum fallacy refers to an argument where because there is an infinite number of continuums between two states that the two states are not different. For instance because there are an infinite number of shades between black and white and there is no shade where black becomes white therefore they must be the same. Nobody doubts whether black or white exists.
>tells you to assume definitions that would make the argument valid
From Wikipedia
>In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available
There is no rational interpretation here without already assuming morality and consciousness exist. This is really just a giant circular argument you've dressed up like every other christfag argument.
>Neither is truly defined.
no true scottsman. You can continue this all day.
>oversimplification
there is no such thing as objectively adequate explanation.
>There is no rational interpretation here without already assuming morality and consciousness exist.
The existence of these is self-evident, at least to me. I'm not certain that ""people"" like you are actually alive or conscious. I will tell you this before I leave, though, and I know it's not an argument:
I have adequately refuted you many times over, but you are one of those stubborn people too stupid to be able to understand how they're wrong. I am not sorry for the destruction of """people""" like you. Ask yourself when the last time you were wrong in a philosophical argument, and consider the possibility that your always having been right is merely a delusion as a consequence of your stupidity. I have a tv show to watch that is surely more receptive than you. bye bye now.
>ambiguous and conflated undefined terms, endless selfserving premises, retarded axioms, undergrad logic tldr i dun proof god with muh grammar constructs and convenient omniscience falacies the pasta
Jeez you people are so stupid.
Op, answer this!
>no true scottsman. You can continue this all day.
No true scottsman only applies when you change the definition because you cannot attack the original claim. You have not given me a definition to begin with because there isn't one.
>there is no such thing as objectively adequate explanation.
>using a definition that is straight up fucking wrong is the same as not being adequate enough
>The existence of these is self-evident, at least to me.
And you are welcome to believe that but this no better than an argument that says
>The bible was written by god
>Anything written by god must be the truth
>The bible says god exists
>Therefore god exists
It's a shitty argument that won't convince anyone who doesn't already believe in it.
>but you are one of those stubborn people too stupid to be able to understand how they're wrong
You're right I should just assume some faggot on Sup Forums has just now proven god exists even though every great philosopher before you hasn't been able to do it for all of recorded history. I'm the stubborn and stupid one here. What I find truly hilarious is you act like I'm acting like a child for disagreeing with you but you're the one who keeps resorting to namecalling and petty insults.