Thread: What is GOD: the feeble proof

What is GOD, well...

If all matter is susceptible to cause, which means everything is susceptible to its concept as well as its unavoidable whim, and nothing can be without some cause, i.e., by true natural means - and as such is a irrefutable principle of nature, than nothing can supersede its concept; that is the concept of cause.

And

If God, a true perfect which undoubtedly the concept of it must be, has existed for all of the past and in turn will exist in all of the futures; as well nothing is above, beyond, or beneath its impeccable nature, i.e., nothing can supersede GOD.

Than

GOD and Cause are the same thing and in turn should be considered relevant to the same principles in regards to every aspect they are and exist within. For if both "if's" are true and yet contradict each other if they both exist separately (by their superseding all), which is impossible, then there is no other explanation other than that they are same thing.

Thus

GOD is not the matter but the concept by which things exist as part of Nature and its means. Such is prayer, for as one prays to "GOD", they are in turn praying for the cause for such a prayer or action to take place.

Originally Posted by m1cojakle

If everything has cause and nothing can exist without some cause...

indeed - a big if + it's far from clear that everything needs to have a cause

also, i'd like some clarification whether we're talking about proximal or ultimate causes, or something different altogether
unless this is clarified from the start this discussion is likely to be ships passing in the night

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by m1cojakle

If everything has cause and nothing can exist without some cause...

indeed - a big if + it's far from clear that everything needs to have a cause

also, i'd like some clarification whether we're talking about proximal or ultimate causes, or something different altogether
unless this is clarified from the start this discussion is likely to be ships passing in the night

I don't see the need for a distinction. We are merely talking about concepts and their relative explanations for what "is". None the less I will specify it is in fact a concept, as i doubt i could be anything other than that.

Hi sorry i made a problem with the quoteing business..

You said-
''GOD and Cause are the same thing and in turn should be considered relevant to the same principles in regards to every aspect they are and exist within. For if both "if's" are true and yet contradict each other if they both exist separately (by their superseding all), which is impossible, then there is no other explanation other than that they are same thing''


But from what source is god so 'impeccable'? I understand there are many sources which say as such. But none portray this perfect harmony of 'god' in a direct sense unto you or me, no source can even give any more than to place the will into your mind to search and understand for yourself the true nature of god or it at all...

What is here? What are you looking for? Probally more over 'where' should you seek the answers to the nature of god or truth about god?

Originally Posted by Dlrow

Hi sorry i made a problem with the quoteing business..

You said-
''GOD and Cause are the same thing and in turn should be considered relevant to the same principles in regards to every aspect they are and exist within. For if both "if's" are true and yet contradict each other if they both exist separately (by their superseding all), which is impossible, then there is no other explanation other than that they are same thing''


But from what source is god so 'impeccable'? I understand there are many sources which say as such. But none portray this perfect harmony of 'god' in a direct sense unto you or me, no source can even give any more than to place the will into your mind to search and understand for yourself the true nature of god or it at all...

What is here? What are you looking for? Probably more over 'where' should you seek the answers to the nature of god or truth about god?

The impeccability lies within the flawlessness of Nature, i.e., energy is never lost or gained; it is merely transfered...

If by "source" you mean religious text? Well then this cause and effect omniscience is exactly what the religious text are referring too when they allude to GOD, they however did not have the means to propagate their knowledge into higher order concepts for they did not have the capacity, at that time, to explain such phenomenon. As well, i recommend the "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant if you require an accurate measure as to how such knowledge is derived and how it can exists by means of it having a source, as well the subsequent flow of this knowledge by means of Nature.

God is a concept by which Nature builds upon itself. As such is true, than if Nature is perfect than so is GOD and thus impeccable. It is rather unlikely that it is not a rational being, as GOD, by being perfect, would exceed that of rationality by means of its flawless nature. Being rational is only the means for beings that are less than perfect to, with near totality, see from the eyes of "GOD" or better yet, to see from the eyes of Cause.

What caused God?

Originally Posted by Obviously

What caused God?

the original question was, "(What is God?), and I think I answered that fare enough that god is the concept of cause.

Since it is merely a concept it doesn't really have a cause. Its more of a metaphysical rule...a priori ya know?

'What caused cause,' would be a better worded version of your question as it allows to to examine the 'idea', that you have so graciously shown us, more easily.

Thus

What caused Metaphysics, which the concept of cause lies within, would be the better question?

and we are now in the realm of physics, mathematics, and in turn Universal Origins, which I had hoped to avoid.

What is god.

I imagine that god is only a concept in the minds of creatures called man and woman ofc (on planet earth) and as the things in question are 'ourselves' as human beings we can only work from the point of veiw of a human being.

Its seems more like 'the nature of man' has created this within his own natural mind. There is no evidence of god being an external force behond the physical existence. So it must be the physical existence. If it is the physical existence, all things, space and all its contents, we when talking or thinking about 'god' are considering things as one thing or trying to. A seemingly incomprehesable thing to do in truth is using the very fintie and restricted 'illusion' of the senses, which only percieve a small ammount of any particular thing in reality - to perceive everything in its entirety. Imagination is very hard to control and has no fundamental truths in relation to its abilities.

The only way to perceive 'god' or what i understand as the entirety of reality as one thing would be too disconnect from the illusion of the senes and into the mind. The senses are only seeing, hearing, smelling e.c.t. which are natural developments best suited to its general survival.

The world we think we know is only our personal interpretation of it - made by the individual mind.

Originally Posted by m1cojakle

Since it is merely a concept it doesn't really have a cause. Its more of a metaphysical rule...a priori ya know?

Only there is no a priori without a definition or context (and an a priori needs to be logically sound). What is God? Does he have mass? etc.

And if he's perfect, shouldn't he be logically sound? Depends upon how you define perfect I guess.

Anyhow, the way I define God, as I define everything supernatural, is "unknown." Indeed, the definition of the supernatural is that it has no definition, thus everything that's unknown becomes automatically supernatural. It really isn't fair, is it? Yet such inconsistency can only be dimissed. A negative definition is as useful as saying 1+2 does not equal 5, and God relies upon such a negative definition.

Negative definitions can be used when describing things such as blindness (being the absense of sight). But this hardly works with the supernatural. How do we negatively definie God? Is he not anything? Well, then he's nothing. But of course he still could be something, but then the possibilities might be infinite, rendering the negative definition useless.

If God is merely a concept, then he's not much of a God at all, is he? He could be anything, but he's (or should I say "it") defined to be "the causer", if you will (one without a cause). That wouldn't necessarily mean he's God in the way that he has a consciousness etc. He, or it, might as well be some sort of particle or something

All in all, saying "God is the concept of cause" merely reveals a stolen concept fallacy.

In one short centence what do you refer to when you use the word god - from a personal point of view, one short centence.

Originally Posted by Dlrow

In one short centence what do you refer to when you use the word god - from a personal point of view, one short centence.

The causality of Nature by which all is fated.

Every event that is nature is connected and is due to the event which was before.

A tree is a tree due to it getting the correct norishment from when it was a seed, the seed got the correct norishment due to its position, its position was due to the manner in which it fell from its place in space before.

The cause you talk of is a physical event or happening.

Do you really think we can catagorise and define every event back to orginal cause of the universe? In this life time? I dont think i could, i dont think anyone will.

Look somewhere else he says...