God is Existentially Independent

[KLOBBER]

I was a biology major,

No you weren't.

You would not have any way of knowing, one way or another, as you were not there. I was.

[KLOBBER]

I was a biology major,

No you weren't.

We should compile a list of all the things klobber has claimed he is.

I made no claim; I stated a fact: I was most definitely a biology major in college.

[xelabale]

INTRODUCTION:

1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.

3. Some entities in this chain possess observable personal characteristics.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence.

5. The atheist refers to this entity as "the universe," and lacks the ability to follow the chain any further back than that, either logically or temporally. There may be other terms the atheist makes up for this existentially independent entity, but just ike the term, "the universe," each one refers to an impersonal entity -- one possessing no personal characteristics.

6. The Theists refer to this entity as God, and He possesses personal characteristics.

7. The fact that God Himself possesses personal characteristics easily explains the existence of our own personal characteristics -- existentially dependent entities can only derive their various characteristics from entities possessing such characteristics themselves.

8. Impersonal entities cannot manifest personal characteristics or bestow them upon others. The absolute lack of personal characteristics in the atheist's notion of our ultimate origin fails to account for the undeniable existence of our own personal characteristics. [/color][/b]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRIBUTIONS, REFUTATIONS, CLARIFICATIONS:

I'm hoping to have a productive discussion on these 8 points. With extremely rare exceptions, I have found the atheist to be basically incapable of discussing such subjects rationally, without descending into personal insults, sadly. However, hope springs eternal, and perhaps there are some Theists on this forum, or people on the fence, who can contribute something of value.

If so, I will edit this original post to include your ideas.

I'm also open to attempts at refutation of any of the above 8 points, but diverging from sound logic and valid scriptural references will be unproductive in this thread. Any successful refutations based on sound logic, valid scriptural references, or both will also result in changes to the original post, which should add an interesting twist to this conversation.

Respectful requests for clarification on any of the above points will also be honored.

CONCLUSION:

Aside from any contributions, refutations, or clarifications to the above 8 points, the conclusion is that all posters on this thread are in agreement, once and for all, with all of them, and that the atheistic opinion utterly fails to explain our ultimate origin, whereas the Theists offer a perfectly logical and complete explanation for our ultimate origin.

In point 1 you said: 1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.
In point 2 you said: 2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.
You then said: I mean exactly what I posted: that there is an observable chain of existential dependence among observable entities -- nothing more, nothing less.
Please clarify.

Point 4 and 5 and your answer to my point 3 - If time is infinite there is no need for an existentially independent being, as the chain is infinite.
Let me rephrase my point from the last post: "Of course there's also the unanswerable question of How did the existentially independent entity come to exist?" as you correctly pointed out the use of "being" was misleading.

Points 6 and 7 - If you are a biology major you know a lot about mutation. New things are engendered. It is possible for my body to make a protein that has never before been made, which will affect my characteristics in a totally new way. To say that "It is illogical to believe that an entity can produce that which it does not possess." is thus refuted.

By derivational I am saying that the existentially dependent being must have characteristics derived from it's precedents in the chain. This is your belief as I understand it, please clarify if it is wrong.

Could you explain your use of the terms "characteristics" and "personal characteristics" as they appear to be used differently and I'd like to be sure of your meaning before i discuss them. It is unclear whether they apply to an atheistic view or a theistic view in your arguments.

[KLOBBER]

In point 1 you said: 1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.
In point 2 you said: 2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.
You then said: I mean exactly what I posted: that there is an observable chain of existential dependence among observable entities -- nothing more, nothing less.
Please clarify.

You mean clarify why one says observable entities and the other says entities?

Point 4 and 5 and your answer to my point 3 - If time is infinite there is no need for an existentially independent being, as the chain is infinite.

None of my points mention any "need" for any existentially independent "being."

Let me rephrase my point from the last post: "Of course there's also the unanswerable question of How did the existentially independent entity come to exist?" as you correctly pointed out the use of "being" was misleading.

Are you postulating that there is an existentially independent entity that "came" to exist? Are you referring to the universe when you say "existentially independent entity?" Why do you find your question impossible to answer?

Points 6 and 7 - If you are a biology major you know a lot about mutation. New things are engendered. It is possible for my body to make a protein that has never before been made, which will affect my characteristics in a totally new way. To say that "It is illogical to believe that an entity can produce that which it does not possess." is thus refuted.

First, your stated premise is both untrue and unproven. Second, even if it were true, it would not disprove the statement you quoted above.

By derivational I am saying that the existentially dependent being must have characteristics derived from it's precedents in the chain. This is your belief as I understand it, please clarify if it is wrong.

There is so much wrong with the above. One is that it is an incorrect use of the word "derivational." Another is the incorrect use of the word "it's." Another is your assumption that I have "beliefs." I do not -- I rely on facts exclusively, and I leave the entire field of belief to you. The kicker is the total irrelevance to the original post, as none of the original 8 points makes any reference to any "existentially dependent being."

Could you explain your use of the terms "characteristics" and "personal characteristics" as they appear to be used differently and I'd like to be sure of your meaning before i discuss them. It is unclear whether they apply to an atheistic view or a theistic view in your arguments.

Simple word definitions are to be found in dictionaries.

For now, the original 8 points shall remain, as you have failed to refute using scripture or sound logic, and you have also failed to make any valuable contributions. If you keep trying, you may warrant some change at some point.

[Snorri1234]

Simple word definitions are to be found in dictionaries.

So your response to the accusation that you're using a term inconsistently and not in the traditional way is "pick up a dictionary"?

[Timminz]

God created man in his own image....

You are a creationist, then. Interesting.

This conversation is about existential independence, however, not about your creationist beliefs.

I get it now. Your faulty perception of reality is what brings you to so many faulty conclusions. You make so much more sense to me now. Thanks.

[xelabale]

I tried to have a decent conversation with you klobber, I engaged in your premises. However you only seem interested in semantics, nitpicking and being right at all costs. I know you mainly troll for fun and that's okay by me, though others may get pissed off with it. However I thought you may have been interested in a reasonable debate in this thread.

Nevermind, have fun trolling.

[KLOBBER]

I am interested in a reasonable discussion.

Your posts were silly, unreasonable, irrational trolling at worst, illogical sophistry at best, and mainly irrelevant to the 8 points throughout. You also failed to answer many questions that I posted for clarification, while I answered all of yours. Here's the review, in chronological order:

...we should be drinking beer instead of responding to this thread - doh...

...same debate but gives less room for trol..... oh, I see.

By the way I like your pet troll, he's kinda cute in a way only truly ugly things can be.

...You are my girlfriend????
Kudos of...??????

...Careful, you're getting drawn into the actual topic and there may be a danger you are contributing positively. Stand down private Prowler. How will this look?

It's kinda cute how the trolls don't troll each other. Like a little troll pact. Have you agreed not to cross the halfway point on the bridge - "You take em from this side, I'll take em from that"...?

...you are an individual to whom the concept of mutual respect among trolls is a stranger.... Just because you don't see his refutation first time round doesn't mean it isn't there fact boy.

Prowler's having a little fun with people, me, I'm a mean son of a bitch, hell yeah. He thinks it's amusing, I'm out to hurt people real good on this non-face-to-face risk forum - it's how I get my kicks. OOh yeah, I'm real angry, I hope I can cut someone deeply today.

Aah ah, before you quote me out of context, READ THIS. The above was irony, nay sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. Guess what, I get to use it here. Disclaimer, the above does not represent the views of xelabale. (to be used when quoted out of context) What do you think Prowler's victims feel like when he's having fun with them? Why, exactly how you're feeling right now!!

Point 4 does not postulate that time has a beginning; it simply postulates the logical fact that there must necessarily be some entity that is not dependent upon another for its existence.

Point 5 addresses the atheist's belief that "the universe" has always existed, ie, he believes that it is existentially independent. I honestly think that you agree with this, but you just don't yet realize that you agree with it. (No response from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

I have posted some statements in point 6 that the Theists say about God, and yes, they do say that He has personal characteristics. It is illogical to believe that an entity can produce that which it does not possess. That's like saying that you can withdraw a million dollars from a bank account with only ten dollars in it. Logically, that is impossible, just as it is impossible for an impersonal entity to display personal characteristics or to bestow them upon other entities.

Conversely, the Theists would say that God, having infinite personal characteristics, displays them without hindrance and bestows personal characteristics upon other entities, meaning us, in the same way that it is entirely possible to withdraw ten dollars from a million dollar bank account, but it is impossible and illogical the other way around (your way).

I was a biology major, and I never heard from any professors that eye color was transferred directly from parents to children without reference to genetic coding, nor that anyone's parents were wholly divorced from the gene pool of their ancestors. Are those your beliefs? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

Do you believe that the gene pool of your ancestors is devoid of the genes responsible for blue eyes simply because your parents have brown eyes? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

There is nothing illogical at all about point 7.

Please note that none of my 8 points makes any reference to the concept of "creation," and that you injected that concept into this conversation independently. Are you a creationist? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

I think that you may mean "no beginning to the existentially dependent entities," and I think that you are referring to a temporal beginning, not a logical precedence, correct? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

Are you postulating that there is an existentially independent "being?" Are you referring to "the universe" as a "being?" If so, please explain why you find this question impossible to answer, and why you chose a word (being) that implies that this existentially independent entity is alive. (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

I used the word "entity," not "being," because it is my intention to come to some agreement, and "entity," unlike "being," may refer to something with or without life of its own, and with or without personal characteristics.

None of the 8 points postulates that an existentially dependent thing has to be derivational -- you injected that concept into this conversation independently. Is it your belief that an existentially dependent thing has to be derivational? If not, then why did you inject that concept into this conversation independently? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

Are you postulating here that some existentially independent entity was "created?" Are you referring to "the universe?" If so, who are you postulating is the "creator" of the universe? Or are you postulating that the existentially independent entity is God, and that He was "created?" (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

Please again note that none of my original 8 points makes any reference to "creation," and that you have injected that concept into this conversation independently. You are a creationist, correct? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

Are you postulating that there is an existentially independent entity that "came" to exist? Are you referring to the universe when you say "existentially independent entity?" Why do you find your question impossible to answer? (No answer from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

First, your stated premise is both untrue and unproven. Second, even if it were true, it would not disprove the statement you quoted above. (No response from Xelabale, only the silence of concession).

The 8 points shall remain.

[SultanOfSurreal]

i'm going to jump in without having read anything else here and say that your 7th and 8th points are a bunch of discredited cartesian dualism voodoo that no intelligent person has taken seriously for at least a century

hope this helps

[KLOBBER]

Trolling never helps, no.

Also, none of my points makes any reference to Descartes, or to dualism, or to "voodoo." Those concepts are coming from your consciousness, not mine, and not from the 8 points.

The 8 points have never been discredited, and I only posted them this week.

Your post offers no logical or scriptural refutations, and so the 8 points shall remain.

[Captain_Scarlet]

so can we agree that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe rather than an anthropomorphic entity and get back to the dice are unpredicatable as opposed to random.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Also, none of my points makes any reference to Descartes, or to dualism, or to "voodoo." Those concepts are coming from your consciousness, not mine, and not from the 8 points.

The 8 points have never been discredited, and I only posted them this week.

no in fact your seventh and eighth points very much are dualism used to "prove" the existence of god, albeit dressed up in a facade of epistemology

[KLOBBER]

so can we agree that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe rather than an anthropomorphic entity and get back to the dice are unpredicatable as opposed to random.

Actually, no. Your statements are based on your own mental speculation about God, not on observation.

In reality, God is not an abstract principle -- He is a person. He does not represent natural law, existence, or the universe -- those things represent Him. He is not an anthropomorphic entity -- mankind is Theomorphic.

[SultanOfSurreal]

EDIT: whoops, you were replying to someone else

[KLOBBER]

Also, none of my points makes any reference to Descartes, or to dualism, or to "voodoo." Those concepts are coming from your consciousness, not mine, and not from the 8 points.

The 8 points have never been discredited, and I only posted them this week.

no in fact your seventh and eighth points very much are dualism used to "prove" the existence of god, albeit dressed up in a facade of epistemology

There is no dualism, and no facade of anything in any of the 8 points, only in your post, and in your consciousness.

The 8 points shall remain.

[KLOBBER]

so can we agree that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe rather than an anthropomorphic entity and get back to the dice are unpredicatable as opposed to random.

Actually, no. Your statements are based on your own mental speculation about God, not on observation.

In reality, God is not an abstract principle -- He is a person. He does not represent natural law, existence, or the universe -- those things represent Him. He is not an anthropomorphic entity -- mankind is Theomorphic.

hmm yes that is truly fascinating and all but it says absolutely nothing w/r/t the plainly evident dualistic bullshit in your original post

All dualistic bullshit comes from your consciousness via your posts, and does not appear in any of the 8 points.

You offer no scriptural or logical challenge, only empty and vulgar trolling, and so the 8 points shall remain.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Also, none of my points makes any reference to Descartes, or to dualism, or to "voodoo." Those concepts are coming from your consciousness, not mine, and not from the 8 points.

The 8 points have never been discredited, and I only posted them this week.

no in fact your seventh and eighth points very much are dualism used to "prove" the existence of god, albeit dressed up in a facade of epistemology

There is no dualism, and no facade of anything in any of the 8 points, only in your post, and in your consciousness.

The 8 points shall remain.

i love how you refer to your hackneyed, uninformed post on the internet forum for a knock-off boardgame with the same level of reverence most people reserve for the concept of liberty or the veneration of a saint

unfortunately jerking off all over yourself does nothing to hide the plainly evident and half-baked dualistic philosophy behind these ostensibly unassailable 8 Points™

[KLOBBER]

Also, none of my points makes any reference to Descartes, or to dualism, or to "voodoo." Those concepts are coming from your consciousness, not mine, and not from the 8 points.

The 8 points have never been discredited, and I only posted them this week.

no in fact your seventh and eighth points very much are dualism used to "prove" the existence of god, albeit dressed up in a facade of epistemology

There is no dualism, and no facade of anything in any of the 8 points, only in your post, and in your consciousness.

The 8 points shall remain.

i love how you refer to your hackneyed, uninformed post on the internet forum for a knock-off boardgame with the same level of reverence most people reserve for the concept of liberty or the veneration of a saint

unfortunately jerking off all over yourself does nothing to hide the plainly evident and half-baked dualistic philosophy behind these ostensibly unassailable 8 Points™

Your posts are dirty, potty-mouthed, and foolish, and they warrant no further direct responses.

[xelabale]

so can we agree that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe rather than an anthropomorphic entity and get back to the dice are unpredicatable as opposed to random.

Actually, no. Your statements are based on your own mental speculation about God, not on observation.

In reality, God is not an abstract principle -- He is a person. He does not represent natural law, existence, or the universe -- those things represent Him. He is not an anthropomorphic entity -- mankind is Theomorphic.

Klobberfacts
Thanks for the klotes, they were entertaining reading!

[SultanOfSurreal]

Your posts are dirty, potty-mouthed, and foolish, and they warrant no further direct responses.

don't be like that brosef i want to hear more about how the mind is separate from the physical world

truly i am captivated

[Captain_Scarlet]

so can we agree that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe rather than an anthropomorphic entity and get back to the dice are unpredicatable as opposed to random.

Actually, no. Your statements are based on your own mental speculation about God, not on observation.

In reality, God is not an abstract principle -- He is a person. He does not represent natural law, existence, or the universe -- those things represent Him. He is not an anthropomorphic entity -- mankind is Theomorphic.

I must of missed the memo

[KLOBBER]

...I must of missed the memo...

You missed a whole lot more than just a memo. Must HAVE.

[Captain_Scarlet]

...I must of missed the memo...

You missed a whole lot more than just a memo. Must HAVE.

sarsicm is really wasted on you kobby

[KLOBBER]

...I must of missed the memo...

You missed a whole lot more than just a memo. Must HAVE.

sarsicm is really wasted on you kobby

Not so, but spelling and grammar lessons are certainly wasted on you.

[Captain_Scarlet]

always a good idea to deflect the discussion when you are losing the argument I see kobby