THE PROOF OF GOD: THE TRUE STORY AND MOTION PICTURE (with transcript)

TRANSCRIPT BELOW [NOTE: Revised argument found here: http://godtrustory.webs.com/godthetruestory.htm].

GOD: THE TRUE STORY AND THE STORY OF TRUTH
(Part 1 of 3)
Andrew Dorman

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Kalam's Cosmological Argument.


Any claim of God must possess certain characteristics. For instance, "God" must be absolute, as well as first-cause.

Additionally, "God," by definition, would possess the attributes: all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful: the 3 most important criteria for any truth-seeker. In this text, we'll equate these characteristics to a known entity: "mind" and argue that, stripped of its vantage point in individuals, such "pure mind" would be God itself.

This will be done by our examining each attribute for absoluteness.


CHAP. 1:
ALL-KNOWING

- Energy cannot exist without space-time
- The Big Bang "created" space-time
- There is no space-time beyond the universe -- thus, no energy.
- If the effect is space-time itself, then the cause of it must be transcendent of space-time (i.e. [that is to say], beyond measure or observation).
- Overall, such a "cause" would subsist in the same manner that functions do of things (i.e., as a foundation for existence). Its causality would be in the purpose of things, just as we do things for a purpose.
- Such a cause would also be eternal (i.e., distinguishable from "infinite" by its having no relation to "time")
- Such a cause would not itself need a cause. It would be a state of affairs -- a state in which an event (e.g., the effect of space-time) derived from.
- Such a state can be either "nothing" or "Oneness" itself.* But since "nothing" cannot create, it must be "One."
[*"One" wouldn't be quantifable until linked with other numbers].
- As for its being transcendent, either it's something abstract or mind itself. Since "abstracts" cannot act, it must be "mind."
- Since there cannot be more than one mind beyond space-time (as that would be measurable and quantifiable), then this mind must be absolute: without comparison.
- There can only be one non-relative absolute: certainty.
- "Certainty" is itself a state of mind -- the most complete thought. Thought implies consciousness.
- Consciousness is the most complex thing to exist -- even moreso than the inorganic universe. Accordingly, any discussion of first cause must account for consciousness, as well.
- Since logical dependency has it that a lesser depends on a greater moreso than a greater depends on a lesser, logic has it that such consciousness was created from beyond, rather than having emerged or evolved from within. Otherwise our brains, paradoxically, would have unthinkingly became thinking things that think themselves. However, its just as likely that our brains channel in consciousness than that it creates it. Its source would be "pure mind" -- a meditative mind without distraction.
- Even though pure mind is our cause, we cannot observe it directly, or conceive of it entirely. Yet it's knowable.
.... For one thing, "pure mind" has no opposite, and we can only fully conceive of that which has a known opposite.* In fact, "pure mind" would itself be the unity of opposition.
[*For instance, we wouldn't know of daylight if that's all we've ever experienced throughout our lives, and night never occurs. It would be clear as day, yet we wouldn't know it. There would be nothing to compare it with.]
.... Yet "pure mind" would be knowable, as we can conceive of its framework (i.e., logic itself).
- Even so, humanity cannot readily observe the nature of such a mind. Individual minds perceiving an absolute wouldn't know if the knowable parts are its most important components, its least, or neither.
- Furthermore, our practical framework of thought may not be the same as God's. For instance, the "unity of opposition" would be prioritized over the "law of non-contradiction".
[*Logic's "law of non-contradiction" refers to time: "a thing cannot both be and not-be at the same time and in the same respect."The unity of opposition is timeless].
- Being the unity of opposition, "pure mind" is simply one complete thought. Yet even a complete thought may result in an epiphany. The epiphany that would have created a physical universe would be the thought of change itself. This thought resulted in infinite change (change = constancy), and all that this entails: relativity, measure, will, etc..
- If this weren't the case and "pure mind" didn't create our consciousness, then any accurate interpretation of reality on our end would be impossible -- only pragmatism would be attainable.
- Since such an absolute creator would be without distraction, and must have had clear intent, it follows that our creation -- along with all other creation -- has a purpose.
- Since our consciousness is the most complex out of all other known living organisms, our existence must be the end result of such purposefulness.

Pt. 2: HOW GOD IS ALL-GOOD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-RslH6dWEo

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• God
• exists
• revelation
• Atheist Experience
• 745
• 744
• 742
• 741
• 740
• 739
• 738
• 737
• 736
• 735
• 734
• Loses
• philosophical proof of God
• Best Caller Ever
• Zen Garden
• Gumi
• Meditation Music
• Hillsong
• Christian Songs
• Atheist Life
• Religious Life
• Lawrence Krauss
• Christian
• apologetics
• Aquinas
• Duns Scotus
• Andrew from Bethlehem
• Pascal's Wager
• big bang
• William Lane Craig
• 12/11

[BastEternal]

I checked this video out and part 2 because you made the claim that atheists are afraid to watch them...

Suffice it to say I'm not afraid to listen to claim after claim after claim with nothing to back them up. "God is this, god is that." Asserting something is in no way proof of what you are asserting.

Anyway, got better things to do....

[namesameasu]

@BastEternal Your own mind, and how you experience it, is evidence for the claims.

[BastEternal]

@namesameasu Nope, my mind is evidence of what my brain is capable of (thinking), not of a god, and how I experience my mind (aka thinking) is certainly not evidence of a god either, that's just silly.

If THAT'S all you've got, I REALLY have better things to do....

[namesameasu]

@BastEternal How do your thoughts appear, sound, taste, feel, or smell? Just wondering -- though I can't describe such "wondering" physically.

"not evidence of a god either"

I believe it's consistent in itself, and with our present knowledge of consciousness, that the phenomenon of thought comes from a greater consciousness, and that the brain is merely our channel, and vantage point, of thought, not its producer. Why do you believe it isn't, when your common sense tells you otherwise?

[DaemoniumCC]

Oh wow. This is just downright ridiculous. I feel sorry for you people.

[RamsesTheFourth]

what a bunch of nonsence...

[jesuriah]

@namesameasu No. We have perfectly reasonable explanations for our senses, that do not require a god. The obvious answer lies in biology. Nerves and brain chemistry tell us where feelings come from. 

Feelings are evidence of feelings, not evidence of god. Apply this same analogy to trees. Trees exist, therefore god? Obviously not. Acorns exist, therefore trees.

[TheWesmaister]

@namesameasu My common sence tells me that I need to have evidence before even thinking something is real, What I think is not evidence of what I claim, I can tell you I am an unicorn but just the ones who really think of it see me as a unicorn and the ones who doesnt face eternal torment in a place where unicorns eat you but you dont die, Religions are born because of ignorance and fear of the dark, Not knowing what is there or disliking what is to come after death.

[politicoochie09]

These "defenders of the faith" that are forced to investigate science (because they are living in the 21st Century now), have a much bigger problem than ever before. They, like the maker of this video, hope to find and prove a creator through investigation of space-time, quantum mechanics, physics, etc., BUT, none of what they discover proves that the creator they find is the SAME person as their Jesus character. In fact, it shows that Jesus is more likely NOT that same creator of the Universe!

[BastEternal]

@namesameasu What kind of question is that? According to the dictionary, that is not what thoughts are. Thoughts are simply a product of your brain, ideas, pictures, a result of electrical, neurological impulses. If you are going to posit anything more than that, you will have to provide evidence.

And please don't assume to know what my "common sense" tells me. I don't play that game, making up stuff about what another person thinks and then arguing strawmen.

Bye.