See a newer (and better) version of this article here: Re: Nonpoint energy field theory
I recently read a blog post “proving god” and partook in a very interesting Twitter debate about the logical proof presented by this person. Now I am sure this post will be ripped apart by the philosphical wizards that they are, but there are some logical objections I would like to make clear.
But before I get to that, I would like to explain that this person, @schicagos, is much like myself, or a post version of myself, who believed in pantheism. I once believed pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that everything is god. But why call it god? The argument was made that when you define god as “all knowing, all powerful, and all present” that you can prove his existence.
And yes, the logical proof given was a really redundant way of proving that what exists truly does exists and then assigning the label god to it. That is not productive at all.
I could call my water bottle god (sure, it isn’t all present or anything) and remove the additional definition of god but that would be excessive. We can already call the water bottle a water bottle.
This guy went out of his way to redefine everything to mean god. Having been here before, it seems to be out of denial that there is no god.
I’m sorry if my ideas are getting jumbled here, but it is hard to debate and blog at the same time. But in effort to keep this coherent, here are some of the points that have made that haven’t been properly addressed.
- If this “god” can know things as was asserted and it knows this because it is in the state of what it knows, then a pen knows about itself because it is in its own state.
- Why call everything god if we already call everything “everything”?
- It was asserted that rocks know things
- 7 people are attacking the claim
- The person defending the claim starts to repeat himself
- The person defending the claim doesn’t know why to call it god
- You just need to believe in it so it is true for you. (Kind of wondering why all the work was put into a logical proof if faith is required)
Further points will be addressed via edit or in the comments.