X-Ftn-To: Ian 

"Ian"  wrote:
>> :))))))) You obviously have very interesting ideas about creating and
>> creation. You mean, if God didn't create himself, then he's not the
>> ultimate creator? :))
>
>Yes, there cannot be an ultimate creator, ie. there cannot be a God, that's
>my point.

:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>> Sorry, wrong. A programmer can affect the running program, without
>> being a part of the program.
>
>If he effects it's running then he becomes part of it. 

:)))))))))))))))

>In the "laws of
>physics" of the "universe" which is the program in the computer, the actions
>of the programmer must be part of those laws, or else those laws will not
>describe the "universe" of the program correctly. Therefore the programmer
>must be part of the laws of physics, therefore the programmer is part of the
>physical universe (just as gravity is part of the physical universe because
>it effects it, even if we cannot see or touch gravity).

I see that your ability to understand a simple analogy isn't better
than your ability to understand God.

>I do not accept your concept of existence.

OK, so when you dream about something, you must be contradicting your
own concepts, because none of what you perceive exists, and since you
perceive it, it is impossible. ;>
Likewise, this universe doesn't exist, although everybody perceives
it. It is merely a figment of God's creativity. It has no real
existence, like your dreams. You can perceive them, but they do not
exist.

>> But, you are perfectly
>> willing to describe unicorns as unreal, and universe as real, in spite
>> of the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever of its actual
>> existence, except perceiving it.
>
>I'm working on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis. 

For that, you need know what is reasonable, and for that, you need to
know the truth. If you don't know the truth, you can call any
consistent illusion "reasonable".

>Of course maybe unicorns
>do exist or maybe the planet Earth doesn't exist, we could all play that
>game.

And maybe unicorns don't exist in one way, and the Earth also doesn't
exist in some other way. People can imagine the unicorns, and God can
imagine the universe. You see one of those imagined things as real,
but to me, there's not much difference.

>> The things that you see as
>> real, are in fact only a bit more real than unicorns and elves.
>
>There's no such thing as "a bit more real", either something is real or it
>isn't, 

:)) Nice concept, although not very sustainable. Does a virtual
reality within a videogame exist or not? If it doesn't exist, how come
you can become a part of it and play the game? However, the existence
of the physical universe is more fundamental, so the universe is more
real than a game, although you can identify with both. So, something
can exist and still be an illusion. Only God's existence is void of
illusion, and therefore, by definition, fundamental.

>either it exists or it doesn't. Existence isn't something that can be
>measured on a scale between one and ten, it is 0 or 1. Otherwise you could
>end up having the answer to the question "Does God exist?" being God
>32.1568% exists and he 67.8432% doesn't exist, which is about as meaningful
>as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxies statement that the meaning of
>life, the universe and everything is 42 :).

This just proves your ignorance of the simplest aspects of philosophy,
elaborated in ancient Greece.

>> >Just because we can talk about unicorns,
>> >what they might eat etc. that doesn't mean that they exist.
>>
>> Exactly. And just because you perceive the universe, doesn't mean that
>> it exists.
>
>The fact that I perceive the universe does not prove that it exists, but
>with the universe defined as being the collection of all the things that
>exist the existence of the universe can be proved a priori, although of
>course that doesn't say anything much about what the universe actually is.

You can prove that _something_ exists, and for finding out what it
really is, you'll need different methods.

>> After all, if somebody erased your memory and plugged you
>> into a virtual reality device, you'd perceive lots of things that
>> don't exist. What would your "scientific" mind tell you, then?
>
>I would end up believing lots of things that are wrong. 

You are doing that right now, so what.

>> Exactly. This is why God is defined as transcendental to causality. He
>> wasn't caused, or created. He's also transcendental to time, or
>> change.
>
>Well perhaps then he also transcends existence, maybe he doesn't exist :).

And maybe you just transcend intelligence.

>> else is new. Human mind is a very limited tool for understanding God.
>
>So we all just give up and believe a load of stuff that doesn't make sense
>then?

Well, as I said, you are doing that right now.

>> This is only because of the limitations of your mind; you work with a
>> narrow minded theory full of limitations, and when you find one, you
>> conclude that you found yourself something fundamental. You just
>> demonstrated that you can't define God as a part of the universe and
>> simultaneously claim that he created the entire universe. Basically,
>> you said that God didn't create himself, but since most people know
>> that anyways, you didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
>
>That's how all purely logical proofs work, they tell you what you already
>knew but didn't realise.

:)))))))))))) You mean, you admit that made a logical fallacy in order
to create a false impression that you proved something, while in fact
you only drew a conclusion from a bad definition?

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org