What was God doing before he created the universe?

[Guest josh]

Hello Airyx

 

I didn't expect such a massive response to my question! Thanks to all for

contributing.

 

Thanks, Airyx, for your points. I was purposely suggesting various

scenarios to prompt speculation. I am fascinated by the idea that 'God'

must exist outside time because his creation of the universe (if he did

create it) exists in time. So can God see everything at once, I argued.

That seems to me to be impossibly infinite data. I have this instinctive

feeling that infinity cannot exist because it 'sort of' doesn't lead

anywhere. I can sense it but can't explain it! I am aware of the idea that

there are other dimensions, and ought to read the book you suggest.

 

It is all very fascinating and exciting, and much more engaging that a

simple God idea.

 

 

"Airyx" <eweinkam@attbi.com> wrote in message

news:1166208666.698120.151830@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

>

> josh wrote:

>

>> This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before

>> there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem

>> arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have

>> come

>> into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the

>> universe.

>>

>> Please argue.

>

> Okay.

>

> You are basing your argument to your own limited perception of location

> and time. The concept behind God is that he exists outside of the

> dimensions that we use to define location, and outside of the dimension

> that we refer to as time. To Him, everything has/is/will occur at

> exactly the same time, and at the same point in space. Don't forget,

> location is always relative.

>

> We are pretty sure that there are many more dimensions then what we are

> able to percieve. There are several different versions of string

> theory, with the principle difference between them being the number of

> dimensions. All of them are supported to some degree through math, but

> not so convincingly experimentally (altough there is some promise in

> that area). Once the equations that support the various string

> theories were re-worked to include exactly eleven dimentions, they

> merged together into what is now known as membrane theory. Now we have

> a larger model (it still needs much refinement), that includes all

> sorts of universes and dimensions, some of which do not necessarily

> include time.

>

> For a fun look at this problem, you should read the book "Flatland: A

> Romance of Many Dimensions (Dover Thrift Editions) by Edwin A. Abbott".

> It has nothing to do with religion, its a fictional story that makes

> it easy to understand the issues of perceiving multiple dimensions.

>

> Anyway, you're argument begins on the initial assumption that if God

> were to exist, he must exist within the dimensions of space and time.

> There is no reason why a omnipotent creative power would have to be

> constrained in such a way, so your argument doesn't stand.

>

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

>

>> Can you show me where a highly qualified lexicographer has included

>> in his definition of a postulate a clause saying anything to the

>> effect that only those who who are qualified to judge whether it is

>> true should be allowed to accept or reject it as true?

>

> There is no judgement on whether a postulate is "true", it is set to

> "true", but this has no bearing on whether the postulate corresponds

> to any fact about the world.

> -- Jim07D6

 

Right! You got it. Very well said.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Al Klein]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:04:41 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>> That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the universe"

>> is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says it is. You're not

>> going to get me to assume that that statement is true. It's a

>> hypothesis.

>It is not a hypothesis because the statement cannot be subjected

>to objective scientific testing.

 

It's NOT EVEN an hypothesis - it's merely an assertion.

>Anyone may make any kind of basic assumption and say that it is a

>postulate

 

And be totally and completely wrong about what a postulate is.

>and saying that it is one makes it one

 

You owe me a tank of oxygen.

 

A postulate isn't the same as to postulate. The verb means "to claim"

- it has nothing to do with the thing you're claiming BEING a

postulate.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican

friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we

will stop telling the truth about them.

- Adlai E. Stevenson

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Al Klein]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

>>

>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Someone wrote:

>>>>> It's been a long time since taking Geometry where we had to learn

>>>>> how to do proofs... But the quoted post is true: a postulate is a

>>>>> statement that is assumed to be true.

>>>>

>>>> That's true, that's what a postulate is. But "God created the

>>>> universe" is not a postulate just because Samuel J Heywood says

>>>> it is. You're not going to get me to assume that that statement

>>>> is true. It's a hypothesis.

>>>

>>> It is not a hypothesis because the statement cannot be subjected

>>> to objective scientific testing.

>>

>> Disagree. God is a testable hypothesis because existence is

>> testable.

>

>There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>scientific methods of inquiry.

 

Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

existence requires objective evidence.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human

concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot

begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old

religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has

been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its

simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."

[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Al Klein]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>> analogy, Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>Correct.

 

The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

in the same room.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your

Christ."

- Mohandas Gandhi

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Ted King]

In article <Pine.NEB.4.62.0612151230560.5974@sdf.lonestar.org>,

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

 

>

> I do not need to provide any proof of God's existence. And Euclid

> does not need to provide any proof that the shortest distance between

> two points is a straight line. One does not need to prove what is

> obvious.

>

 

This subthread started with this exchange:

 

> > Your

> > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an

> > excuse.

> Less of an excuse for what?

 

For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by

God.

 

[unquote]

 

To which Al Klein responded with, "It's only "obvious" if you've already

decided that it's true. That's called assuming your conclusion."

 

To which you responded with:

 

 

No, it is called postulating the major premise.

 

To postulate means to state a postulate.

 

A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true

without proof.

 

"We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a

basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof.

 

[unquote]

 

I will grant you that one could posit the statement, "We live in a world

created by God," as a postulate - an assumption that is accepted as true

within a certain logical domain. And one could posit as a postulate

within a certain logical domain that this statement is obviously true.

As postulates within those logical domains they would be accepted as

true without proof.

 

But look closely at the context at the beginning of this subthread.

Chris said, "Your research just might find God or at least give people

less and less of an excuse" (...for blatantly missing the obvious, that

we live a world created by God.) The phrase "your research just might

find God..." does not imply Chris was presenting a postulate - something

to just be accepted as true ; on the contrary, the clear implication is

that by looking at enough material with an open mind one will be come to

see that there is such good reason to think to God created the world

that it will seen as obviously true. This has every appearance of being

presented as a claim that carries a burden of proof rather than being

presented as a postulate.

 

Your statement that is at the top of this post carries the implication

that God's existence does not require "proof" because it is obvious. If

all you intend by that is to say that you are positing a logical domain

where it is a postulate that it is obvious that God exists, then that is

all fine and dandy (accept I have no interest in considering it). But if

you mean to imply that even beyond the confines of that logical domain

it is in fact the actual state of affairs that it is obvious that God

exists, then I would say you are positing a claim that carries a burden

of proof.

 

Ted

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>

>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

 

>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>

>> Correct.

>

> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

> in the same room.

 

Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

asks for. The believers who make a foolish attempt at presenting

that kind of proof to an atheist always fall on their faces.

A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

simple realization.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>

>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>

>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> Someone wrote:

 

<snip>

>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>> scientific methods of inquiry.

>

> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

> existence requires objective evidence.

 

I don't know what you are talking about.

 

The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, in alt.atheism

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in

<Pine.NEB.4.62.0612170433190.25446@sdf.lonestar.org>:

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>

>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>

>

>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>>

>>> Correct.

>>

>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

>> in the same room.

>

>Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

>verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

>asks for. The believers who make a foolish attempt at presenting

>that kind of proof to an atheist always fall on their faces.

>A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>simple realization.

 

Valid proofs are a logical conception. Valid evidence is objective.

Religions have neither to support their claims about the gods.

[Guest Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:31:53 -0500, in alt.atheism

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in

<Pine.NEB.4.62.0612170453240.25446@sdf.lonestar.org>:

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Someone wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>>> scientific methods of inquiry.

>>

>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

>> existence requires objective evidence.

>

>I don't know what you are talking about.

>

>The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

>realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

 

That neither requires nor implies any gods.

[Guest Neil Kelsey]

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

> >

> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Someone wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

> >> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

> >> scientific methods of inquiry.

> >

> > Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

> > existence requires objective evidence.

>

> I don't know what you are talking about.

>

> The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

> realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

 

Yes. I myself have come to realize that the "knowledge of the existence

of God" (isn't that a bit redundant?) is perceived through the one and

only nonsense organ.

[Guest Jim07D6]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Someone wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>>> scientific methods of inquiry.

>>

>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

>> existence requires objective evidence.

>

>I don't know what you are talking about.

>

>The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

>realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

>

 

Words have senses; ontological statuses (if there is more than one)

have modes. At least, I suggest this refinement.

 

I'll grant, for the sake of argument, that there is one and only one

mode of existence.

 

The latter part of your assertion entails that to be a thing, and

therefore, classifiable as being in the group that makes up

"everything", is to exist. Therefore, to not exist, would be to not be

a thing. The question then becomes, is a thing being referred to when

one utters "God" in print or orally.

 

Another formulation of your assertion would be "...everything that

exists, exists on one, and only one sense [mode]". This would assert

that some "things" are things in a sense of that word that does not

entail their existence. The question in this case would become, is the

thing referred to by the word "God" existent?

 

In any event, I do not believe that the idea that everything exists

in one and only one sense (mode) leads to either the attainment that

(1) there is a thing referred to by uttering "God, or (2) the thing

referred to by the word "God" exists.

-- Jim07D6

[Guest Weatherwax]

"josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote

> Hello Airyx

>

> I didn't expect such a massive response to my question!

> Thanks to all for contributing.

>

> Thanks, Airyx, for your points. I was purposely suggesting various

> scenarios to prompt speculation. I am fascinated by

> the idea that 'God' must exist outside time because his creation of the

> universe (if he did create it) exists in time. So

> can God see everything at once, I argued. That seems to me to be

> impossibly infinite data. I have this instinctive feeling that infinity

> cannot exist because it 'sort of' doesn't lead anywhere. I can sense it

> but can't explain it! I am aware of the idea that there are other

> dimensions, and ought to read the book you suggest.

>

> It is all very fascinating and exciting, and much more engaging

> that a simple God idea.

 

I wish that I read your post when you first asked your question. However I

have been away from the newsgroup for over a year and have just gotten back.

 

Some of the answers to your question makes me think of Antony Flew's story

of the two explorers. These explorers had come across a garden oasis. One

of the explorers suggested that there must be a gardener who took care of

the garden. The second explorer argued that there was no gardener. The

first explorer decided to prove that there was a gardener by waiting at the

oasis for the gardener to show up.

 

After several days, no gardener was seen, but the oasis still florished.

The first explorer said that only proves that the gardener is invisible,

therefore they brought in dogs to detect his presence.

 

After several days, the dogs did not detect the presence of any gardener.

The first explorer said that only proves that the gardener cannot be

detected by animals, therefore they brought in electronic equipment to

detect the gardener.

 

After several days the electronic equipment did not indicate the presence of

a gardener. The first explorer said that only proves that the gardener

cannot be detected in any way, therefore they built a fence around the oasis

which would prevent the gardener from entering.

 

After several days the fence was still there, but the garden florished.

The first explorer said that only proves that the gardener was of such a

nature that he could move through the walls.

 

If Antony Flew's story continued long enough, I am sure that he eventurally

would have had the gardener existing outside of time and in a separate

deminsion. This is a safe sanctuary from reason.

 

The "other deminsion" scenerio is popular because translators have taken

Hebrew words and given them new meanings. The Hebrew word which is

translated as "heaven" is "shamayim" which more accurately should be

translated as "sky", which is the original meaning of "heaven". Even today

you hear the sky referred to as "the heavens". In Genesis 1 God formed the

heavens and the earth. The heavens is described as a dome which covers the

earth and separates the waters above from the waters below. Upon this dome

is placed all the stars and the sun and moon. That pretty well describes

how the sky looks to the un-aided observer.

 

Even in the new testament, the Greek word which is translated as "heaven" is

"ouranou" which actually means "sky", and is translated as "sky" everywhere

except in the Bible..

 

One more point. The Bible does not depict God as creating anything

ex-nihil.. The Hebrew word is "bara" which has the root meaning "to form".

God didn't create the heavens and the earth, he formed them. The waters

themselves are formless and are therefore pre-existent with God.

 

--Wax

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>

>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>

>

>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>>

>>> Correct.

>>

>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

>> in the same room.

>

>Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

>verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

>asks for.

 

The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and

never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed.

>A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>simple realization.

 

Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence.

"Realization" is opinion, not evidence.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"For aught we know a priori, matter may contain the source, or spring, of order

originating within itself, as well as the mind does."

- David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Al Klein]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:31:53 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Someone wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>>> scientific methods of inquiry.

>>

>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

>> existence requires objective evidence.

>

>I don't know what you are talking about.

 

Then you shouldn't be attempting to discuss what I'm talking about.

should you? It's not very intelligent to attempt to discuss things

you don't know about, is it?

>The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

>realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

 

But your opinion ("The knowledge of the existence of God") isn't

objective evidence that your god objectively exists, it's merely your

opinion. See Ted King's post for a more in-depth explanation of how,

while your god may exist in the domain in which your assertion is a

postulate (your mind), no one else really cares about THAT god. We

only care if there's an objectively real god that exists in the

reality external to your mind - a god for which there would, of

necessity, be objective evidence.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is

human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind

cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an

old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and

never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in

its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of

madness."

[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Libertarius]

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>

>>

>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>

>

>

>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>>

>>

>>> Correct.

>>

>>

>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

>> in the same room.

>

>

> Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

> verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

> asks for. The believers who make a foolish attempt at presenting

> that kind of proof to an atheist always fall on their faces.

> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

> simple realization.

>

> Sam Heywood

> -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

 

===>It all depends on what you mean by "GOD".

 

In most cases, the "GOD" is just an imaginary being

existing in the head of a believer, whose ideas are based on

someone else's description of the "GOD" is HIS or HER head.

 

But there are tangible things such as a mountain or a vulcano or a

sculpture some people believe to be gods. And those, of course, do

exist.

 

There is also "Spinoza's God", so called and believe in by Albert

Einstein, and of course THAT one actually DOES exist,

the only "omnipresent" and "eternal" existence there is.

I.e. the MACROCOSMOS, NATURE, "ALL THAT EXISTS". -- L.

[Guest Libertarius]

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Someone wrote:

>

>

> <snip>

>

>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>>> scientific methods of inquiry.

>>

>>

>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

>> existence requires objective evidence.

>

>

> I don't know what you are talking about.

>

> The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

> realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

 

===>Everything that exists has always existed and always will exist,

in some form, since the COSMOS is a PROCESS of constant formation and

transformation of ITSELF and all of its component parts.

 

There is no extra-cosmic super-natural entity, since the COSMOS

is all there is, ever was, or ever will be (credit: Carl Sagan). -- L.

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>>

>>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that are

>>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>>

>>

>>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate that

>>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>>>

>>>> Correct.

>>>

>>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

>>> in the same room.

>>

>> Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

>> verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

>> asks for.

>

> The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and

> never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed.

>

>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>> simple realization.

>

> Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence.

> "Realization" is opinion, not evidence.

 

A realization is not an opinion. A realization is an experience.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote:

> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>>>

>>>>> OK, here's the balance: that doesn't mean postulates ARE true. As I

>>>>> showed before, there are a number of non-Euclidean geometries that

>>>>> are

>>>>> also consistent, but use a different fifth postulate. Taking this

>>

>>>>> Christians can postulate that God exists and can then define

>>>>> their universe in terms of that postulate. Atheists can postulate

>>>>> that

>>>>> God doesn't exist and then can define their universe as well. Both

>>>>> world-views can be entirely consistent within themselves... The only

>>>>> problem is when you get those Euclidean mathematicians and those

>>>>> Reimannian mathematicians into the same room.

>>>

>>>> Correct.

>>>

>>> The other problem is when you get the God claim and objective reality

>>> in the same room.

>>

>> Also correct. That is why when an atheist demands objective

>> verifiable proof of the existence of God he never gets what he

>> asks for. The believers who make a foolish attempt at presenting

>> that kind of proof to an atheist always fall on their faces.

>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>> simple realization.

>>

>> Sam Heywood

>> -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

>

> ===>It all depends on what you mean by "GOD".

>

> In most cases, the "GOD" is just an imaginary being

> existing in the head of a believer, whose ideas are based on

> someone else's description of the "GOD" is HIS or HER head.

>

> But there are tangible things such as a mountain or a vulcano or a

> sculpture some people believe to be gods. And those, of course, do

> exist.

>

> There is also "Spinoza's God", so called and believe in by Albert

> Einstein, and of course THAT one actually DOES exist,

> the only "omnipresent" and "eternal" existence there is.

> I.e. the MACROCOSMOS, NATURE, "ALL THAT EXISTS". -- L.

 

There is only one God, and He is known by many names. Call Him

Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great Spirit.

It doesn't matter. By whatever name, we are speaking of only The

One True God.

 

Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham by realization.

He differs only by attempted description.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Jim07D6]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

<...>

 

 

Samuel:

>>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>>> simple realization.

>>

>> Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence.

>> "Realization" is opinion, not evidence.

>

>A realization is not an opinion. A realization is an experience.

 

When "valid" modifies "proof" in logic, it conventionally is taken to

be "so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the

conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction" (dictionary.com)

 

If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this

fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs.

-- Jim07D6

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote:

> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:33:25 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Someone wrote:

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>>> There exist many things whose existence is not testable by objective

>>>> scientific methods of inquiry.

>>>

>>> Not things that OBJECTIVELY exist. The definition of objective

>>> existence requires objective evidence.

>>

>> I don't know what you are talking about.

>>

>> The knowledge of the existence of God is attained through the

>> realization that everything exists in one, and only one sense.

>

> ===>Everything that exists has always existed and always will exist,

> in some form, since the COSMOS is a PROCESS of constant formation and

> transformation of ITSELF and all of its component parts.

>

> There is no extra-cosmic super-natural entity, since the COSMOS

> is all there is, ever was, or ever will be (credit: Carl Sagan). -- L.

 

Thanks for posting that. I have heard it before in Philosophy 101.

And I saw the video too, and would like to see it again. To Carl

Sagan the Cosmos is a natural entity. To many others the Cosmos is a

super-natural entity. Whether one thinks of the Cosmos as a natural

or as a super-natural entity is irrelevant if you can understand that

the Cosmos is just one of many thousands of names for the Almighty.

 

To acknowledge that "everything that exists and has always existed

and always will exist" is to acknowledge that God exists.

 

For believers, reading Carl Sagan can be just as enlightening as

reading something like this:

 

"I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending, saith the Lord,

which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

--- Revelation 1:8

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

> <...>

>

> Samuel:

>

>>>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>>>> simple realization.

>>>

>>> Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence.

>>> "Realization" is opinion, not evidence.

>>

>> A realization is not an opinion. A realization is an experience.

>

> When "valid" modifies "proof" in logic, it conventionally is taken to

> be "so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the

> conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction" (dictionary.com)

>

> If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this

> fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs.

> -- Jim07D6

 

In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof

is a proof that may be derived from the results of investigating

something that may be investigated within the boundaries of science

and by using the scientific method and testable hypotheses, etc.

 

Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for

one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

> The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and

> never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed.

 

The fact that there is no objective evidence of God is not a problem

because God has not been objectively investigated.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Free Lunch]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:57:48 -0500, in alt.atheism

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in

<Pine.NEB.4.62.0612171946090.27734@sdf.lonestar.org>:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>

>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote:

>

>> The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and

>> never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed.

>

>The fact that there is no objective evidence of God is not a problem

>because God has not been objectively investigated.

 

How would you objectively investigate God?

[Guest Jim07D6]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

>

>> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>>

>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>>>

>> <...>

>>

>> Samuel:

>>

>>>>> A valid proof does need to be objective. A valid proof may be a

>>>>> simple realization.

>>>>

>>>> Evidence of objective existence, by definition, is objective evidence.

>>>> "Realization" is opinion, not evidence.

>>>

>>> A realization is not an opinion. A realization is an experience.

>>

>> When "valid" modifies "proof" in logic, it conventionally is taken to

>> be "so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the

>> conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction" (dictionary.com)

>>

>> If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this

>> fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs.

>> -- Jim07D6

>

>In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof

>is a proof that may be derived from the results of investigating

>something that may be investigated within the boundaries of science

>and by using the scientific method and testable hypotheses, etc.

 

Well, the usual philosophical definition and use of "objective"

doesn't go into methodology, only into the independence of the

supposed fact from mind. For example, the proof of "This apple has

seeds" is usually considered to be different than the proof of "this

apple is yummy" in just the way in which objective and subjective

facts differ. Would an apple taste yummy if there were no minds? Would

an apple have seeds, in this situation?

>

>Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for

>one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God.

 

It seems to be an appropriate response to "Scientifically prove God"

to say "Science is silent on God." But whether the existence of God is

independent of mind, is another question.

-- Jim07D6