Can we logically prove the non-existence of a "supreme" creator? •Yahadreas YHDRS Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Location: Exeter, England Total Topics: 170 Total Posts: 3494 #181 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 16, 2012 - 10:45 AM: pars wrote:You decided everything about him.No, the creator decided the initial conditions, not what is done after. Or are you arguing against free will as well?He will feel victim when something bad happens because he didn't choose to exist... *this is very important*.Irrelevant childish tantrum.He cannot even be sure we want to exist. *this is probably the most important point in one's existence*.You're free to end it if you want. Or you're free to continue it. You have the choice.Real goodness is not possible to him. Read goodness is: I am good because "I" want to be good. Free will. You choose to be good or not. The creator doesn't force you to help old ladies cross the road or donate to charity. Spontaneous emergence wouldn't resolve this issue either because you still didn't choose your existence. Self-creation is impossible. So if you require self-creation to be "really" good then "real goodness" is incoherent (because it requires a logical impossibility).He cannot be sure about the things he wants. Maybe you bugged him to want it. Maybe you didn't. His doubt is his problem.He is a slave a robot.Free will. •pars Resident Usergroup: Members Joined: May 08, 2012 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 140 #182 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 16, 2012 - 11:08 AM: Yahadreas wrote: No, the creator decided the initial conditions, not what is done after. Or are you arguing against free will as well? Irrelevant childish tantrum. You're free to end it if you want. Or you're free to continue it. You have the choice. Free will. You choose to be good or not. The creator doesn't force you to help old ladies cross the road or donate to charity. Spontaneous emergence wouldn't resolve this issue either because you still didn't choose your existence. Self-creation is impossible. So if you require self-creation to be "really" good then "real goodness" is incoherent (because it requires a logical impossibility). Maybe you didn't. His doubt is his problem. Free will. Your point #1: Free will. My answer: Yes some people say he (the created) has free will. But I don't think so. When you ask him "why you did this?" His answer: choice n depends on choce n-1 choice n-1 depends on choce n-2 choice n-2 depends on choce n-3 ... choice 1 depends on choice 0 Choice 0 was made by the creator. He can put the blame on the creator. You can't say anything. Similarly when he does something good, the creator gets the credit. Your point #2: You're free to end it if you want. Or you're free to continue it. You have the choice. My answer: You are cruel man :-) Your point #3: Free will. You choose to be good or not. The creator doesn't force you to help old ladies cross the road or donate to charity. Spontaneous emergence wouldn't resolve this issue either because you still didn't choose your existence. Self-creation is impossible. So if you require self-creation to be "really" good then "real goodness" is incoherent (because it requires a logical impossibility). My answer: You cannot prove that you are good because you want to be good. Maybe you were programmed to be good. You cannot be sure about anything you do. Who wants it? you or your creator? Spontaneous emergence (or self-creation which means the same thing) solves the problem because no one decided anything about you. You are free. Your point #4: Maybe you didn't. His doubt is his problem. My answer: If the creator bugged him (maybe he did may be not) he cannot be happy. The problem is that the created can never be certain. It is impossible for him to be certain. "Do I have a bug?" is a valid question. He is not able to find the answer. He can NEVER NEVER NEVER know if he want to exist. This is evil. •pars Resident Usergroup: Members Joined: May 08, 2012 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 140 #183 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 17, 2012 - 2:49 AM: Dear all, Here is the final version of the proof, much more clear: What is a supreme creator? A hypothetical morally superior being who created all of us. How to prove that he doesn’t exist? We assume that he exists. We find a fault (violation of love) that he committed on purpose that we can prove. The fault should be compatible with common sense and convincing. If he is evil, he cannot be a "supreme" creator. The proof 1. Supreme creator made a design choice which is a violation of love. 2. Then he is either unskillful or evil. 3. We assume that he is not unskillful. 4. He is evil. 5. If he is evil, he cannot be supreme creator. How did he violate love? We don't define what love is. But we imagine the highest value possible. Real love: I love because "I" want to love. If I was created, I cannot prove my love. Who wants my love? Me or him? Real love is however possible if "I" am the supreme being Supreme being is a cloud of love. A small part of it left the cloud. The small part is me. But I was not created. I am the cloud. I was there now I am here. I am the supreme being. I am love. PS: This is what mystics have been saying for centuries. •mayor of simpleton The Sisyfus Lapcat ZAP! Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 20, 2009 Location: Vienna, Austria Total Topics: 101 Total Posts: 4030 #184 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 17, 2012 - 3:49 AM: Wouldn't it be easier to state that the concepts of design, as well as creations, forced upon the cosmos are anthropomorphic assessments? You might as well note that intention, purpose and agenda are anthropomorphic assessments when forced upon the cosmos. Occam's Razor might just shave off this rather deceptive beard. Meow! GREG btw... the proof just negates a single argument for the existence of a god/deity, not all of them. •Yahadreas YHDRS Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Location: Exeter, England Total Topics: 170 Total Posts: 3494 #185 - Quote - Permalink 1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted May 17, 2012 - 3:53 AM: pars wrote:How to prove that he doesn’t exist?We assume that he exists....And the argument defeats itself on the first premise. $350 please. Edited by Yahadreas on May 17, 2012 - 3:59 AM •pars Resident Usergroup: Members Joined: May 08, 2012 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 140 #186 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 17, 2012 - 3:56 AM: mayor of simpleton wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to state that the concepts of design, as well as creations, forced upon the cosmos are anthropomorphic assessments? You might as well note that intention, purpose and agenda are anthropomorphic assessments when forced upon the cosmos. Occam's Razor might just shave off this rather deceptive beard. Meow! GREG btw... the proof just negates a single argument for the existence of a god/deity, not all of them. I don't understand the "anthropomorphic assessments" part of your comment. What are the other arguments for god/deity? •pars Resident Usergroup: Members Joined: May 08, 2012 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 140 #187 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 17, 2012 - 4:02 AM: Yahadreas wrote: And the argument defeats itself on the first premise.$350 please. Still no.. This is called: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction We first assume the opposite... On May 17, 2012 - 4:04 AM, Yahadreas responded: I was hoping you wouldn't know that. I'll do anything for money. •Yahadreas YHDRS Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Location: Exeter, England Total Topics: 170 Total Posts: 3494 #188 - Quote - Permalink 1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted May 17, 2012 - 4:12 AM: I don't know why I bother to continue to try, but here goes:1. You haven't shown that it is not the case that you love because you want to love. Although it's true that you did not choose to exist, it's not necessarily true that the creator has established your fate.2. You haven't shown that it is evil to create beings fated to love. •pars Resident Usergroup: Members Joined: May 08, 2012 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 140 #189 - Quote - Permalink Posted May 17, 2012 - 4:21 AM: Yahadreas wrote:I don't know why I bother to continue to try, but here goes: 1. You haven't shown that it is not the case that you love because you want to love. Although it's true that you did not choose to exist, it's not necessarily true that the creator has established your fate. 2. You haven't shown that it is evil to create beings fated to love. You can't prove your love. Love can't be. It is you who loves or he programmed you to love? If you love me but I know you were programmed to love me. I would not care about your love. You are just a robot. •Yahadreas YHDRS Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Location: Exeter, England Total Topics: 170 Total Posts: 3494 #190 - Quote - Permalink 1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted May 17, 2012 - 4:35 AM: pars wrote:You can't prove your love. Love can't be.You don't need to prove your love to have it.It is you who loves or he programmed you to love?You're assuming he programmed me to love. Maybe he didn't.If you love me but I know you were programmed to love me. I would not care about your love. You are just a robot.Again, you're assuming I have been programmed to love. Maybe I haven't.You also haven't shown that it's evil to create beings which have been programmed to love. It could be that you've been programmed to love because if you hadn't then you'd choose to hate. And I'd say it's better to force someone to love than to let them hate.The only time forcing someone to love could be considered wrong is if they would have chosen to love anyway. In which case it might be that only those who would choose to hate have been programmed to love, whereas those that would choose to love have been left to their own devices. Supreme being to the rescue!So, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to:1) Prove that you have been programmed to love, and2) Prove that you would have chosen to love if you hadn't already been programmed to. Edited by Yahadreas on May 17, 2012 - 5:21 AM

Recent Internal Replies
On May 18, 2012 - 2:57 AM, mayor of simpleton replied internally to pars's Hi Greg, I ....
On May 17, 2012 - 10:12 AM, Yahadreas replied internally to BalanceofEquilibrium's Well then, I t....
On May 17, 2012 - 9:37 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to BalanceofEquilibrium's Well then, I t....
On May 17, 2012 - 8:10 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to Yahadreas's Yep. I don't....
On May 17, 2012 - 4:04 AM, Yahadreas replied internally to pars's Still no.. This is c....
On May 16, 2012 - 8:09 AM, busycuttingcrap replied internally to Banno's Hmm. So the argument....
On May 16, 2012 - 12:19 AM, Banno replied internally to Yahadreas's And when it (ine....
On May 16, 2012 - 12:16 AM, Yahadreas replied internally to Yahadreas's And when it (ine....
On May 16, 2012 - 12:15 AM, Banno replied internally to Yahadreas's And when it (ine....
On May 15, 2012 - 8:04 AM, mclark replied internally to Yahadreas's Finally we'r....

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.