Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

mjgjr706 said:
I started this thing off with an idea that I had thought about off hand a few times, and now I am here defending it as thought I have claimed it to be absolute truth... However I will defend the point for the sake of argument... One of the main points lies in our inability to have an original thought... Thats was a huge point in the argument... Lets take your example of a flying spaghetti monster (I do give you props here because the notion of such a creature makes me sound dumb)... So anyway a flying spaghetti monster in all probability does not exist, however both flying things, and spaghetti I believe we can both agree do exist, right? So therefore in some form the components to your scary lil logical monster DO EXIST... So therfore the "question of God" does in a very vague and non specific way provide a logical argument for the existence of God whether or not you believe that the Italian cuisine has evolved to the extent of ascertaining the ability to fly or being categorized as a monster at this juncture is yet to be specified or determined... However there is a logical leg to stand on here albeit unrefined at this point... And now my friend I hope that every time you sit down to a plate of spaghetti you sit for a moment in amazement at how awesome God is :)
Click to expand...

Not a day goes by that I don't enjoy His warm, noodley embrace.

Interesting attempt to form an argument against original thought.

Your argument is that there is only a posteriori (derived solely from experience) knowledge but no a priori (derived solely from reason) knowledge, and thus it is easy to disprove.

For example, sharp rocks, twine, and long sticks are elements that humans experienced. However, only through the process of reasoning were humans able to combine the three into new technology, and form a new tool, the spear. All innovation is ultimately original thought. The very computer that you are using today was not knowledge that existed a hundred years ago. People did not conceive of microchips, LCD screens, and wireless network cards.

While it is true that all a priori knowledge is constructed of elements of a posteriori knowledge, the fact of the matter is the arrangement of those elements is knowledge based solely on reasoning until they are actually tried. As evidence of this, if I were to give you a list of all the components in an LCD screen, could you build one without knowing how to put the parts together?

The concept of God is highly constructed. Unless you wish to argue that Zeus, Yahweh, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all one in the same god, then you are left with competing conceptions.

Anywho, I think that is a sufficient argument that original thought does exist, and as such, it disproves the premise of your argument and thus defeats your "logic".
 
Last edited:
Satya bro you put a whole bunch of words in my mouth on that one... Words that I didnt say and words that you assumed... Between all the points there I cant figure out if you would like to continue to argue this point or if you want to know my philosophy on knowledge or if you want to know what God I worship... Let me please answer these all for you... 1st off spaghetti is good... 2nd there is both posteriori and priori and real knowledge flows where these two intersect, the latter claim that original thought is a sufficient argument based on what you stated is ludicrous IMO... If you added 2 plus 2 and got 4 and then I added another 2 to that and got 6 then I believe I am far from an original thought... I simply added another 2, no matter posteriori or priori its still not an original thought. As for the Yahweh, Zues, and the flying spaghetti monster idea... Well they most def are not the same... Zues is a fake who was actually created by God as an angel... Yahweh is the ONE and ONLY true God, His son being Jesus and the flying spaghetti monster is an idea of man to make those who believe in God sound stupid with "basic" logic when in reality the only problem is that of ones own perception... So... How do we resolve this Satya? I think I have figured this out, we both have our points... We both have our LOGICAL POINTS:) I feel that this has been a good logical joust the likes of which I rarely encounter due to the abundance of unworthy competition. We can continue to joust however we will probably never agree barring a divine act of pasta occur... In which case I will make some garlic bread and we shall rejoice together right here in from of God, Zues, and the spaghetti monster... You gots your points and I gots mine... This has been fun I hope we can throw down in the future... Or now... You know Im game:m034:
 
I like this argument better, although flawed

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
 
mjgjr706 said:
Zues is a fake who was actually created by God as an angel... Yahweh is the ONE and ONLY true God, His son being Jesus and the flying spaghetti monster is an idea of man to make those who believe in God sound stupid with "basic" logic when in reality the only problem is that of ones own perception...
Click to expand...

On what logic did you base that conclusion?

So... How do we resolve this Satya?
Click to expand...

Well...seeing as how you are stating that I don't understand the logic by which you are making your argument, could you provide a clear, and concise set of premises? Perhaps we can resolve it if I actually understand what you are arguing.

I think I have figured this out, we both have our points... We both have our LOGICAL POINTS:) I feel that this has been a good logical joust the likes of which I rarely encounter due to the abundance of unworthy competition. We can continue to joust however we will probably never agree barring a divine act of pasta occur... In which case I will make some garlic bread and we shall rejoice together right here in from of God, Zues, and the spaghetti monster... You gots your points and I gots mine... This has been fun I hope we can throw down in the future... Or now... You know Im game:m034:
Click to expand...

I still don't see the logic in your argument, but if you want to deisist from the discussion then feel free.
 
Sithious said:
I like this argument better, although flawed
Click to expand...

How about my version...

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (Flying Spaghetti Monster) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

What you are utilizing is a logical fallacy called Begging the Question.

You are concluding that a God must exist because there is a possibility that a God exists. As such, your premise includes the claim that the conclusion is true.
 
I see you have posted this in numerous forums. You are obviously a SJ type because you won't accept that you can be wrong, or debate, you just post and then peace out.

If you want to have a real discussion, post this over at the INTJ forums, i'll meet you there. =D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
Oh, a 25 year old who thinks he knows everything. Yeah, I hate those.
 
I am 26. 26 is the year in which you know everything. I know this because I am 26.
 
Sithious said:
I like this argument better, although flawed

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...

Step 2 is flawed. Possibility does not entail actual existence.
Step 3 is flawed. What is there to suppose that if a "maximally great" (whatever that term means) being exists in some world then it exists in all of them?

This seems like a weird variation on the Ontological Argument.
 
Duty said:
Step 2 is flawed. Possibility does not entail actual existence.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Possibility proves existence.

In the Firament of Chaos which is similar to the Galaxy Filament, except it's an ocean of chaos with no floor, walls or crest. Within the Firament of Chaos all things are possible and thus exist by the nature of possibility within a realm of chaos. Even Order.

Order is created by Chaos, it is the very nature of Chaos that all things must exist within it.
 
So?

Imagine that our "universe" is just an atom inside the molecule of a skin cell of some cat on some planet of some other "universe".

Well, we could think of this cat as our almighty Creator, but it has no idea of us, and we have no way to comprehend its dimensions or get in touch.

So how is all this relevant to our existence? It isn't.

The relevant parts of this whole debate are related to the social aspects of religion, which are created by people, and are thus quite imperfect. More and more people reject religion as a social factor - that's something relevant. Meanwhile, Creator may exist, but that doesn't mean all the other mythological stories about Its influence on Earth are true.
 
Unless "God" is conceived properly, as a holopantheistic entity, and all within are just a part of the whole. If sapient beings are merely "radio signals" of other "god/universes", to use a metaphor, who are in communication with the "god/universe" and are translated within this entity as people in a social situation.

"God" learns the message of the other "Gods" by understanding the lives that the "radio messages" are playing out.
 
Shai Gar said:
Unless "God" is conceived properly, as a holopantheistic entity, and all within are just a part of the whole. If sapient beings are merely "radio signals" of other "god/universes", to use a metaphor, who are in communication with the "god/universe" and are translated within this entity as people in a social situation.

"God" learns the message of the other "Gods" by understanding the lives that the "radio messages" are playing out.
Click to expand...
All such stories are wonderful, but the OP hasn't provided a proof of them. Mere existence of "Creator" doesn't change much.

The "Creator" for what we call "universe" could be just some physical force, that has its own "Creator", and so on. It's amazing how we want to personalize it, to imagine some human qualities in this mysterious "Creator". We want it to be directly related with humans.... ^^ .... poor us. Well, yeah, because otherwise it wouldn't matter at all. (which for now seems to be the case)
 
It is proven within the Book of ShaiGar, which states it to be true. Therefore it is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back