Proof of God

I would like your criticism on my proof of God.
Also, if this has been said before by a philosopher, I would like to know who.

God, the being that created the universe either exists or not.

If he exists, than he exists, if not, than I am God.

The meaning of this is that if God doesn't exist in the traditional form, then I am the highest willpower that I can prove exists in the universe. As far as I know, every other human is a simulation or automaton. I have no idea that there is another soul on earth.

I do know that I exist, and that I exist consciously and that I have a will.

Being potentially the highest conscious will in the universe, I take the role of God as my own.

This means that my purpose in life is to execute my will onto reality.

Essentially my theory is a contingency on the nonexistence of the traditional God.

I would appreciate you criticism, and like I said, let me know if a philosopher has made this claim before. Thank you.

Other urls found in this thread:

iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
youtu.be/lXIoA31hyAg
youtube.com/watch?v=nlDNrHGUoOQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
youtube.com/watch?v=p0dZ3IQtQGQ
strangenotions.com/how-contemporary-physics-points-to-god/
youtu.be/oyH2D4-tzfM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I should inform you. This is Sup Forums a board to discuss "Politics and Free Speech". Your thread has a topic which would be more appreciated in /his/ - History and Humanities.

I see God discussed here frequently and furthermore the existence or nonexistence of God is a fundamental philosophical opinion that affects every opinion a person may have.

Solipsism is an incoherent position. iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Why is that exactly?

Religion is faith retard. The whole point is that there is no proof.

A 01 exists which implies subjective objectivity giving rise to existing truth which can only be described as God or something of that nature.

...

But there are lots of philosophical "proofs" of God. Like Aquinas for example. This is the form I'm putting this forward as.

I agree that faith is necessary for belief.

Honestly I don't understand what you just said. Can you rephrase that?

>As far as I know, every other human is a simulation or automaton.
This is solipsism.

Read "7. The Incoherence of Solipsism" in link provided.

youre redefining GOD to mean something vague that only exists

thats probably your biggest problem, convincing people of your definition of god, pagans do this a lot

when you can tell us the origin of "God" -- as in the worship of a single entity over many, I'll take you seriously.

The Atlantean religion was called Harmony.

>But there are lots of philosophical "proofs" of God
>philosophical
That's the problem. The 'first cause' IF it really exists, is unknown. To say 'therefore God' is not logically incoherent.

Look up monism.

sounds like you're over thinking everything. there is no god, but you are indeed in control (for the most part) of your will. but so is everything around you.

no u r the simulation

I wonder what lies beyond the material, it's to understand because everything we see it represented by the material. The material stops at 6 dimensions.

A nothing something exists which implies all of reality is knowledge code existing inside of our collective minds. This would imply there is a "higher" level which then opens an infinite amount of possibilities, many of which would revolve around intelligent design.

I'm not defining God. I'm claiming the title of God as the highest will in the universe, and convincing other people of this is actually not really necessary under my system.

I like William Lane Craig for that sort of argument, but people are turned off by him because of his evangelical style.

Advocates of the cosmological argument typically say that God shares the attributes of the event that caused the universe.

Thank you I will

>there is no god

I am saying that under this contingency that I claim the title of God for myself.

>Advocates of the cosmological argument typically say that God shares the attributes of the event that caused the universe.
Exactly. It's a meaningless statement.

>I like William Lane Craig for that sort of argument, but people are turned off by him because of his evangelical style.

my statement stands, larper.

>If he exists, than he exists, if not, than I am God.
False dilemma fallacy

I don't agree.

I mean do you think the big bang happened for no reason? Surely some metaphysical dam broke, and the waters of the universe rushed forth.

What sort of event broke the damn? It created time and matter, so it should be super-physical and timeless.

And it must have been an enormously powerful event that caused the big bang.

These are descriptors of the God of classical theism.

Implying will exist's because you're a narcissistic, ignorant retard.

I've had these exact thoughts on myself on multiple occasions. Through deduction, the result is always the same that God does exist.

>I mean do you think the big bang happened for no reason?
Physics doesn't care about reason. Only your human psychology does.

>What sort of event broke the damn?
Unknown.

>And it must have been an enormously powerful event that caused the big bang.
Maybe, maybe not. We do not know.

>highest will in the universe
thats defining/redefining god

you see the pagans do this all the time, god is actually this thing that is practical and convenient for me to worship or understand

by making yourself god you are lowering the bar for what a god is, and AND like the pagans, god looses all meaning

so you can claim the title of god but it doesnt mean anything and no one will take you seriously

The Philosophical God, such as that of the ancient Greeks vs the Abrahamic God of the Hebrew Israelites. Neither of which communicates with us directly, but mainly through signs if at all.

youtu.be/lXIoA31hyAg

>Physics doesn't care about reason
Physics certainly does care about causality. I don't agree with you at all here.

>Unknown
>We do not know

Surely we can speculate? In any case shouldn't this position make you an agnostic?

I should inform you. This is Sup Forums a board to discuss "Politics and Free Speech". Your Post ID has a color which would be more appreciated in /LOO/ - POO IN LOO

I said this to another guy, I'm not redefining God, I'm saying that if the classical God doesn't exist I claim the position of God for myself as the highest will I can know exists.

This is all to say, "I am living in a dreamworld and either there is a great dreamer or I am the dreamer."

Nothing wrong with that thought. Psst solipsism is a perfectly self-consistent philosophy; that link had a terribly constructed argument against it.

I'm feeling ok about my theory here.

I thought surely someone here would have some sort of knockout punch to it, but the criticism is not all that strong as far as I can see.

>Physics certainly does care about causality. I don't agree with you at all here.
Reason is not the same as causality.

>Surely we can speculate?
We can. But let us do is with rigor instead of fancy.

>shouldn't this position make you an agnostic?
Technically. However there is no evidence of God. I think that makes me a functional atheist.

Right. That's a good way to put it.

Is there a formal philosophy of this sort of idea? You seem like you may know what your talking about.

>/his/

you been there lately, poo?

>God, the being that created the universe

But I don't see any proof that you created the universe, how could you possibly be God?

Punji BTFO

Based Pakis bringing the bantz

If you are god, then god exists, so he exists and you are not god

>that link had a terribly constructed argument against it.
Explain.

If you can only communicate solipsism with symbolic language then, if others are automation so are you.

>implying god is the highest will
well this is your biggest problem, presupposing what god is.

again because classical god doesnt exist doesnt mean god is the highest will existing.

hell, what if classical god exists...

Well then maybe I should have been more clear originally that I meant the cause of the universe rather than the reason.

>However there is no evidence of God. I think that makes me a functional atheist

I disagree very strongly with this opinion that atheism is the "default" belief and it disappoints me to see atheists take it. Agnosticism I think is clearly the default position on God.

zoom in again user... zoom

The cult of egoists had a similar process.

You're talking about a variation of Rene Decartes.

Decartes once made an argument that was summed up as "Cogito ergo sum" ( which = "I think therefore I am")

The argument was that at the very most, a person can only prove that they exist; that they know they exist because they can ask the question "do I exist"; that this process of thought proves existence; and that you cannot otherwise prove the existence of anyone else.

As for your argument... I don't believe you can get down to "if God doesn't exist than I am God", because, with apologies to Decartes, your being able to prove the existence of anyone else does not alter the fact that they exist, or don't exist.

For example... does anyone exist on the other side of the world even if you've never seen them before? Their existence or non existence is something that is independent of your recognition.

Determinism, and the choices you make that fulfills it.

youtube.com/watch?v=nlDNrHGUoOQ

>I disagree
>I think
Not an argument.

>Agnosticism I think is clearly the default position on God.

Agnosticism is not a position. It's more like refusing to take a position, but it doesn't answer any questions. It's nothing at all.

>I do know that I exist, and that I exist consciously and that I have a will.
prove it

Oh look everyone, some edgelord faggot discovered solipsism. Welcome to eighth grade, dickhead.

Agnosticism is atheism by definition actually. You can't both believe and not, since belief has a binary boundary. Any further statement regarding that belief (such as conditions to the belief) are irrelevant. It's atheism.

well you're out of your league because you dont even know the definitions of atheism and agnosticism.

on top of it you post a theory completely filled with holes.

just stop

Ok,

There is no evidence extraterrestrial life exists. Should I just rule it out then? Why would my default position be that ET life is nonexistent?

...

You're one of those imbeciles who thinks Agnosticism is a middle-man/mutually-exclusive

Please, stop.

...

nonsense, see this

>There is no evidence extraterrestrial life exists

But that's not the question. Do you believe in extraterrestrial life, or do you not? THAT is the question. Nobody is asking you to present evidence.

>solipsism

That shit will make you crazy user.

you dummy, atheism is the answer to the claim that is a god

you cant prove a negative

>prove to me that santa doesnt exist
youre out of youre element

atheism is the rejection of a claim
agnosticism is that you claim to know

I know very well the definitions of agnosticism and atheism.

Feel free to start your argument at any time though.

>There is no evidence extraterrestrial life exists.
Correct.

>Should I just rule it out then?
No, but you should not live your life assuming that they might. A demonstrable non-existence and a practical non-existence (lack of evidence) is that same thing. Further, an existence that has zero measurable effect on us is also functionally non-existent, i.e. what many define as God.

>subjective objectivity
oxy moron

>(PwR0sHKF)
total moron

you can be an agnostic theist

> posts trump
probably explaing a lot

That's non-sequitur to such a ridiculous level it would make a logic oracle explode.

I can absolutely prove a negative.

I can prove that there are no tyrannosaurus rex alive on earth. I can prove that there are no bigfoot.

Your statement is flatly incorrect.

So why then from that position should you say the ET life (or God) does not exist in actuality?

You should simply say "I don't know."

>I can prove that there are no bigfoot

Ok then, prove to us that there are no bigfoot.

omg youre an idiot

really did you look everywhere? idiot

Crazy or free? Just accept that every other human being is indistinguishable from a zombie and live happily in this universe that exists for you and you alone.

elaborate you turbonigger you have nothing on me

>I can prove that there are no tyrannosaurus rex alive on earth.
Fallacy. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

If someone claims to be agnostic they are usually ambivalent, musing between belief and disbelief - not atheist.

From this position it doesn't matter whether God exists or not if he has no measurable effect on our universe.

> Has zero measurable effect.

Says who?

God has proven Himself to millions of people throughout history. But proof is non-transferable. What is proof for one cannot be converted to proof for another.

Yes, you say, but proof must be objective; it must be repeatable otherwise it's not proof.

Under normal circumstances I would agree, but there is still proof and you know it when you get it.

"God exists as a collective unconsciousness

Each one of us act as neurons transmitting information to this stream"
-Ketamine

Ok, a better example of proving a negative. There are no muslim memebrs of the supreme court.

The original post I replied to calimed that a negative couldn't be proven. Which is niave, and /r/atheism level talking point.

none of you are capable of proving that you yourself exists in the first place, why bother trying to answer everything if everything is subjective you faggots>?

thats how religion starts, a super secret that only i know

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Then the next level
youtube.com/watch?v=p0dZ3IQtQGQ

>but dude, what if it's all like a simulation man? *rips bong*

>you know it when you get it.
And you trust your own mind as infallible?

nothing to say?

ah ok youre just a troll

i thought Sup Forums had some interesting to say

here's some alex jones

One cannot say that there is no god, because that is unprovable.

However, there have been thousands of made up gods and we all know they are false now. Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, Zarathustra, Ahura Mazda, etc.

The strong inductive evidence is that - in light of the thousands of gods we now know are false - is that any current made up gods will be false as well. Because that is their obvious nature, to be contrived and pretended.

That does mean they are atheists, though. Just because you're considering buying a porsche and sometimes rethinking the idea of buying it doesn't make you a porsche owner, and doesn't make you a semi-porsche owner.

Dude quantum lmao

>There are no muslim memebrs of the supreme court.

You can say that because we know each member of the supreme court. We can't say the same about the universe, but just because we don't know about it we can't say that God exists, whatever that is supposed to be.

The Anthropic Principle vs A universe which would wipe us out in a whim without a second thought.

they aren't*

>Claiming God is false
>them digits

We're onto your tricks

>The meaning of this is that if God doesn't exist in the traditional form, then I am the highest willpower that I can prove exists in the universe
All that proves is that you exist, nothing more.
> As far as I know, every other human is a simulation or automaton. I have no idea that there is another soul on earth.
Only a fucking autist would think this, is that even remotely likely on the balance of probability ? no.
>Being potentially the highest conscious will in the universe, I take the role of God as my own.
Larp to your heart's content, it proves nothing other than your own larping.
>This means that my purpose in life is to execute my will onto reality.
Another non sequitur, you suck at logic.

nonargument
The original point I was responding to was that you "cannot prove a negative" which I believe I've just demonstrated is obviously false. What you say about the universe is not what I was talking about.

strangenotions.com/how-contemporary-physics-points-to-god/

>Ok, a better example of proving a negative. There are no muslim memebrs of the supreme court.
It's still an appeal to ignorance. You have no idea what the *real* religious belief of the Justices on the Supreme Court are because you can't know what they *actually* believe. And what you call "muslim" might be what they call "judaism".

You still have nothing except a tightening spire of useless nothingness.

Nature proves god faggots. God is Supreme Emperor of battlemastery

>analytics cannot handle unpredictable threats
>God mastered this with an unpredictable defense called natural diversity (over time)
>things "useless" now may one day be your savior when you despair
>science is a method to make better tech
>a method is not a spiritual belief, is just tool like spoon

I think therefore I am - You would not be if others (who were different) were not or were never!

Sickle cell anemia saved u from plague when latent. Thanks God! Repent fags!!

youtu.be/oyH2D4-tzfM

We are made in His image. Is God a primate?

Where did i see this image from, I wonder.

I agree with this user.