On God and The Arbitrary

Introduction; The Foundation of Proof:

Few would argue against the fact that something exists, that there is a reality. This implies two things; that you exist and you exist with the ability to perceive other things that exist, which is to say that you are conscious and what you are conscious of is reality. The other thing it implies is that to be is to be something and to be something is to be; to exist is to have a nature, to be limited; to have an identity.

These are the three basic facts of reality that all ideas either reduce to or are refuted by. They are absolutes and the foundation of all proof and therefore cannot be disproved. They cannot be reduced further, they are the very beginning; such a concept is called an axiom. All of logic, the whole science, is an examination of the implications of the Law of Identity beginning with its direct corollary the Law of Non-Contradiction; a thing cannot be both its self and not its self at the same time and in the same respect. To make sense is to be consistent with the axioms. To be logical is to make no contradictions. The definition of logic is; the art of non-contradictory thinking.

Symbolically the law of identity is written as “A is A”; where A can stand for any concept or entity. The Law of Non-contradiction can be written as “A =! -A”.

So we have the three philosophical axioms; Existence, Consciousness, and Identity.

What is meant by god is generally a creator of existence. So this will be the god Ill be refuting to start with.

Existing While Not Existing (Being both A and -A):

To create existence youd have to somehow exist outside of existence which is a contradiction. Existence is everything that exists; to not be included in this is to not exist. You cant create anything unless you exist. And to create your self is nonsense.

Something From Nothing:

Now there is also the issue of the conservation of matter and energy principles; they say that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. All acts of creation as the concept is used aside from the creation of existence refer not to somehow turning nothing into something but rearranging what already exists. For instance if I make a clay pot I dont say poof and magically have a pot in front of me that wasnt there before and was not made from something (i.e.; made from nothing) I have to take something, raw clay and rearranges it into the shape of a pot and then fire it which rearranges it on a molecular level into something rock hard rather than soft and gooey.

This something from nothing would in logic be an A being a -A. But A = A and A =! -A. Non-existence has no identity, no nature and cannot be modified into something, there is nothing to modify. Nothing could not have become something, that is impossible. Creation is change and a things attributes are what dictates what it may be changed into. Nothing is not a thing and has no attributes. In fact a thing is its attrubtes. Nothing is the lack of anything it can not be rearranged in to something because there is nothing to rearrange.

Unlimited As Not Anything:

Infinity is impossible (except in respect to time). To be is to be something, to be infinite is to be without end to have no limit, to be nothing in particular, to have no limits; no nature. An infinitely powerful god is no god at all, because it has no nature and no identity.

There is an old argument that is very much related:
Can an infinitely powerful God create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it? If so then he is not infinitely powerful because he can not lift the rock, if not then he is not infinitely powerful because he cannot create it.

This does not disprove the existence of god as such but the existence of an all powerful one and a creator of existence. So then does this leave room for a limited god? Perhaps, but there is more that does not.

The Death of God and All The Rest:

Now here’s the biggest point: There is nothing in nature that can prove the existence of something above (or otherwise out side of) nature, no facts in reality can point to a super-nature. There are no facts in reality that point to the existence of a god and therefore no reason to think that there is such a thing. The arbitrary is necessarily disconnected from reality. To say something that isn’t about something you know to be in reality, i.e.; something you have not experienced or seen proof of is to say something about nothing. Because to not be in reality is to not be. And when someone asserts something disconnected from reality (i.e. without any evidence) it is to be treated as if he has said nothing at all; because he has said nothing at all, nothing about anything real.

And even to claim that the existence of the arbitrary is “possible” is to make what in logic is called a positive statement. To say anything of something that ascribes something to it, as opposed to denying something of it, requires evidence of that statement. So you cannot logically say that God is possible without some evidence to suggest a possibility. Let alone that God exist in absence of any evidence.

To say that you can’t disprove something so it is possible is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. To claim that because something has not been disproved so it is true, in this case; in respect to possibility. It attempts to make a positive statement ascribing possibility to something and demand disproof in place of providing evidence. This is a a shift of the burden (or onus) of proof.

The onus of proof principle means that someone making a positive statement is the only person obligated to provide proof. This is because disproof can only be attempted by showing the presented evidence to be wrong or by otherwise relating the claim to reality. For instance an arbitrary claim made about a perceivable place may be disproved by going to that place and showing that the thing said to be there is not. However even this lends validity to the arbitrary and leaves the person expounding the arbitrary free to make more arbitrary claims in defense of the original ad infinitum. Unless you know to reject the arbitrary out of hand you will find yourself drowning in literal nonsense. You cannot demand counter evidence when no evidence has been presented. You cannot disprove when no attempt at proof has been made.

And you cannot rationally call something true that you have no proof of.

There you have it. Now, you can either evade what I have said or you can consider it honestly, the choice is yours to make. But keep in mind that you live in reality and adherence to it (honesty) is a necessity of living in it well.

Report This Post

5 thoughts on “On God and The Arbitrary

  1. Monk

    “This implies two things; that you exist and you exist with the ability to perceive other things that exist, which is to say that you are conscious and what you are conscious of is reality.”

    Although your first assumption is correct “that you have the ability to perceive other things that exist”, the alternative wording is not; “which is to say that you are conscious and what you are conscious of is reality”.

    The first sentence is inclusive, saying that you perceive reality, but not excluding the idea that it is possible to perceive things that are not “real”. The second is exclusive, saying that you are only conscious of things that are “real”.

    An example of this would be a hallucination. What is perceived in the hallucination is not real, however what causes this perception is certainly real.

    I say this is wrong because you use what you are conscious of to be synonymous with perception, in saying the second wording is a restatement of the first. Of course, depending on how you define reality, this argument could be invalid, so… please define “reality”.

    I apologize if there are any errors in this argument that I have missed, as It’s 5:34 am and I have not yet slept.

    ______________________________________________________________

    A hallucination is on the level of interpretation not perception. Perception is a causal relationship between your means of perception and your object of perception. Although interpretation can be mistaken perception cannot. All you can perceive is what is real, the only thing that can interact with your senses are existential thing, things in reality. Your senses give you reality raw and uninterpreted, just the things that interact with them.

    Reality, existence, is the sum of all things that exist. – Jonathan Awesome

    Report This Comment

  2. Achieve(&)Create

    How can one explain the creation of atoms, and subatomic structures? I completely agree with you, but the question still exists… Something had to exist before the tangible could be created… Right?

    ______________________________________________________________
    Not really knowing what they are ultimately made of we can’t know how they came to be. All we know is that whatever it is that they are made of interacts in such a way as to produce them; something like the way atoms interact to make molecules. -Jonathan Awesome

    Report This Comment

  3. Derek R

    As my normal interests lie outside of wondering about the existence of god, my statesments i make may stray off.

    The thing i would like to mention is the always asked question,

    “Can an infinitely powerful God create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it? If so then he is not infinitely powerful because he can not lift the rock, if not then he is not infinitely powerful because he cannot create it.”

    (and you should have used your own ideas to state this, so i’ll do it for you)

    As this question is paradoxal (right word?), it is not a logical question, going against the law of non-contradiction. As the question does not fit the law, it has no reason of even being asked in the first place. So more realistically, this is the wrong question being asked about an infinitely powerful god.

    So then what IS the proper question we should be asking about an infinitely powerful god? idk and its too early in the morning for me being the one to come up with it lol.

    Well done once more.

    Report This Comment

  4. David

    I like the depth and consistancy of your discourse.
    Two problems:
    1) as a point existance (not ubiquitous) we have limited perspective and knowledge of all
    2) Godel’s theorum proved that any axiomatic system powerful enought to represent itself could be consistant but not complete. In this I offer you the perspective that there can be an existance outside of my perspective of existance.

    Great job in logic.
    Hope this helps

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *