God cannot exist...sue me!

[TheJackel]

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

What I wrote was very technical, but how hard is it to understand that "Nothing" can not be in literal context "Something"? It's very easy to conceptually understand, and you even seemingly like to argue that it could within your own self-contradicting arguments. There simply never was literally nothing As for the technical post, if you understand what a Ground State is to complexity, you are golden to understand that anything above ground state will have higher complexities greater than Zero (ground state).

The rest of that is just understanding the four stages of matter, how emergence works, or what it is when scientists talk about "Nothing" when they are only talking about "Ground state"/"Zero point Energy".

So what best describes existence? Energy! No God required.

[Achronos]

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

What I wrote was very technical, but how hard is it to understand that "Nothing" can not be in literal context "Something"? It's very easy to conceptually understand, and you even seemingly like to argue that it could within your own self-contradicting arguments. There simply never was literally nothing As for the technical post, if you understand what a Ground State is to complexity, you are golden to understand that anything above ground state will have higher complexities greater than Zero (ground state).

The rest of that is just understanding the four stages of matter, how emergence works, or what it is when scientists talk about "Nothing" when they are only talking about "Ground state"/"Zero point Energy".

So what best describes existence? Energy! No God required.

Dude, calm down.  I'm reading your post right now, and it's making sense.  Before I was a bit confused on the point you were making, but you replied with a really long message. That's why I need some time.

So far I understand that "nothing" in the Hawking sense means a dynamic equilibrium.  The question I propose is how did this equilibrium come about?  And why are we not smashed together into a "0" state rather than keeping elements of the equilibrium separate?

As I read your post, I'll answer your post in full.

[TheJackel]

Dude, calm down.  I'm reading your post right now, and it's making sense.  Before I was a bit confused on the point you were making, but you replied with a really long message. That's why I need some time.

Whoa! I don't think I was ever upset or anything for that matter :pop:

So far I understand that "nothing" in the Hawking sense means a dynamic equilibrium.  The question I propose is how did this equilibrium come about?  And why are we not smashed together into a "0" state rather than keeping elements of the equilibrium separate?

In Quantum Physics there is only zero-point ground state energy on average, and has always been dynamic. And equilibrium is a very bad word to use actually. However, It doesn't come about, it is the very base of existence itself, material physicality, capacity, and complexity. It is lowest possible level of complexity possible, and the highest level possible. Otherwise you are talking about trying to rationalize the existence of non-existence as a person, place, or thing. Anything less than ground state is virtually impossible. There can never be Nothing as a substance, object, place, or thing correct? So why would even attempt to paste a rational that the substance of existence had to be created when that is impossible, as well as impossible to not exist. Energy technically is the only thing that can represent a Universal Set of all Sets, and solve infinite regress. A GOD could never do such a thing.There simply no cause to energy simply because it's non-existence is impossible since it is the very substance of exists, space, capacity, volume, information, matter, or sum total of all that exists and can exist.

Example:

It would be impossible to think, do, reply to this post, or exist at all without it.

As I read your post, I'll answer your post in full.

Np. Take all the time you need  

[Achronos]

Okay, some thoughts in this argument, until I'm done listening and reading information you've given me on the physics behind all this:

Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

There can simply be no Phenomenon, object, person, place, or thing without material physicality... And for the easier clarification. Nothing can not be a something! EVER! It can not be a substance, object, person, place, entity, or thing!

Not hard to grasp at all.

That is why God is no simple phenomenon, object, person,place or thing.  His existence shouldn't even be called "existence."  Words cannot fathom who or what God is.  We have no choice but to use anthropomorphic language to describe Him, but God is not something to be described, but to be experienced, as we are given that capacity to experience Him.

I'm being direct. It's not "de-emotionalizing reality" either. It is preventing you from using such thing as an argument because it's not an argument in regards to this subject. It's called honest discourse, and trying to emotionalize it a common tool used as some sort of argument to a supposed GODS existence when it is no such argument what-so-ever. If I don't be direct with you, this would spiral into nonsensical circular arguments that aren't worth anything in value to the discussion.

Honestly God is not a "thing" or "person" whose existence should be proven like a stone or Socrates.  He (a pronoun one is forced to use) is the means by which one thinks and acts.  One can only "prove" Him by our actions and by reflecting the inner relationship we have with Him.  Science rightfully lacks emotions in its arguments.  But when I speak of God, emotions cannot be separated from the rational, for both are intertwined in speaking about God.

Atheists "emotionalize" their arguments by pointing out the disasters and atrocities that occur in the world and God does not intervene.  So what do you expect from a believer?  Perhaps, you shouldn't use arguments that point to people's emotions to prove that He doesn't exist, "Where's your God now?  Why hasn't He prevented the deaths of many innocents?"  That's not proving God's inexistence, that's stirring anger and resentment, no less emotional than one's call for God's love and peace in heart and spirit.

Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it. All emotions and feelings are material physical patterns, and all that means is that they are REAL!   Using these as arguments is worthless to the discussion because I don't think you are going to argue that your love is "Nothing", and made of "Nothing". I'm also not afraid of what you said because I've used those arguments before while I was a Christian. I fully comprehend the argument and it's purpose even if it's seemingly not by intention.

You say "Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it."  I say, I do feel the love of God, and I express it back to Him and to others as well.

Now, the rest of your post is scientific, and I'll need time to study it.  But the point is that this whole mode of existence we're in, this whole equilibrium of 0 we have (nothingness in this concept), all this discussion does not matter, because any solid theist who enjoys the study of science would not find this as threatening to his/her own belief in God, as least so far as I might think.  Your whole attack on Christianity is the idea of emotion.  I'm simply saying, you can't remove emotion from rationality in discussing God.  In just as much as God permeates His "Life" through us beyond any physical senses, it is the same in my discussion with you.  You cannot scientifically test God or describe God.  God simply is, whether it makes sense, whether it makes you giggle, or whether I look like a fool to you saying it, in the end, you have to understand that we don't even care what next scientific endeavor there is.

A big mistake on both sides is the idea we use "God of the gaps" argument.  For sure, there are theists who do use "God of the gaps" and there are atheists who recognize it and then generalize it to say we all believe in "God of the gaps."  As science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith.  Read Psalm 57.  "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain."  We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes.  But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose.  An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

I remember I had a discussion about abortion, and I wasn't arguing embryological abortion, but fetal abortion.  The argument made against me was that a woman has her rights about her own property (her body) just as a man can protect his own house from intruders.  I argued, but what if a toddler crawled into a man's house?  Does the man have a right to shoot and kill the baby?  The answer I received was that my argument is based on emotion, while his is based on logic alone.  I thought that argument indeed lacked emotion, and I didn't criticize this person for being an emotionless psychopath, although I'm sure others might, but I told him reality has it that emotion is as important as rationality.  I think there's a basic agreement to disagree from that point on.

I'm not arguing abortion at all here, but I'm simply stating the fact that to remove emotion from discussing God as if God is some sort of scientific hypothesis is a vain attempt because no one stated God existed in the same way anything else does.  The famous scientist who said, "God?  I have no need of that hypothesis" shows exactly the narrow thinking of scientists.  Logic can only take you so far, and emotion can only take you so far.  Just as "faith" is a philosophy by which one lives by, really the basis of faith is God, God is my faith.  He is not an idea that I live by, but I believe He permeates in my existence that I may live it rightly and freely.

It is why I like to speak of God as "transcendant."  I think that's the most accurate way to describe God, and even that does injustice to His "being".  The paradox is this:  I can conceive that He is inconceivable.  The strange thing is like string theory, one can't prove it, but it works.

There's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment.  You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."  Maybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?  How is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place?  Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium?

If the answer to that question is something you already answered via one of the links you gave me, you don't have to answer this one.  But then again, I'm not sure if I'm asking it correctly to get my point across.

[Achronos]

Okay, so more thoughts....I've watched all your videos (except the one hour one) and read all your comments.  Fascinating stuff, but what you seem to not understand is that by understanding more of what you're teaching me, I put more and more importance and majesty into the idea of God's creativity, and my belief in Him is stronger because of it.  As I explained before "God of the gaps" is indeed a God-blunderer.  One's true faith in God is precisely not that which explains gaps in the phenomena, but that which explains the Cause of all phenomena.

When I say I believe in Creator, Mover, Life-Giver, I don't mean that to be explained in a scientific sense.  The laws of physics, the chaos-order dynamic, the increasing and evolving complexity of nature, strings, branes, quantum mechanics/electrodynamics, qubits, mathematics, etc. are all "created, moved, and given life" by God.

1) you have a literal impossible self contradiction
2) To say a GOD is infinite is equal to say the sum total of existence is GOD. That includes me, you, and everything. And that conflicts with another argument of "Existing in a different plane".. And the very fact that you claim it to be it's own individual with it's own mind and consciousness already makes it finite and not infinite.
3) You are also no grasping "Existing IN" hence not the answer to existence or creator of. At best you are limited to material physical manipulation no different than man creating cars and big cities, or even synthetic life.

1.) Because proving God exists in the same way you or I exist is impossible
2.) Despite the fact that it is yet to be proven (in fact, string theory is nothing but a theory by which one can see how the world works, and not something that can be tested like all other theories, which is a strange predicament scientists find themselves) that the cosmos is infinite, even if so, God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."  The "plane" argument is anthropomorphic language.  God does not have His own consciousnss, is not an individual, etc, all anthropomorphic or limiting language that describes something unlimited.  As I explained before, it's hard to explain God because God is unexplainable.  But He permeates in us, and we can freely subject ourselves to Him.  He gave the cosmos freedom, and this freedom is actualized in us, but it does not mean He does not "exist."
3.) Nope.  Once again, we are limited to reshaping what already exists, but God is unlimited, and hence a "true" Creator.

Incorrect. the Ultimate Paradox is that Existence itself doesn't requires Consciousness to exist. It is consciousness that is slave to the rules of existence. You essentially have it backwards. The biggest difference is the Existence simply exists because Non-existence can not exist. There is no creator to existence because that is impossible, and you can argue by virtue of opinion alone that there is no such thing as "GODS". Especially when all entities must follow the rules of existence!

I asked this in my previous post, but I also want to say that this is quite an assumption that we make of reality itself, that existence is merely existence, and nothing else can be assumed.  It is a scientific principle, a primary law of thermodynamics, but again believers will simply tell you, "God created it that way."  As Hawkings even admits, he didn't disprove God, but rather he did something all atheists in the past have confessed as a central part of their "faith," "God is unnecessary."  There is nothing new in what he said, and it's an ages old belief, but this is where I strongly disagree with.  God is certainly unnecessary in scientific observations, but is necessary in seeing in science beauty and purpose.  No one can prove or disprove God in a scientific manner, but one can contemplate whether He is necessary or not in one's life, and if so, how does that necessity manifest itself?

I promise if I have more thoughts, I'll only do it after watching that long youtube video, but I don't think it'll change anything I believe or have written to you.

[TheJackel]

That is why God is no simple phenomenon, object, person,place or thing.  His existence shouldn't even be called "existence."  Words cannot fathom who or what God is.  We have no choice but to use anthropomorphic language to describe Him, but God is not something to be described, but to be experienced, as we are given that capacity to experience Him.

This has got to be the most desperate use of irrationality to which I have ever seen come out of a Christians mouth or post on the internet. It's the most desperate form of pleading as well. This is even worse of an argument this argument I got in another forum:

Only GOD can KNOW how to Create Knowledge into existence

People either are intentionally stupid for the sake of circular arguments, or they really are this dumb. And I really hope you are merely trying to play dumb. When you start using Carl Segan's Dragon arguments and then try to tag on attribute of non-existence so it doesn't have to apply to existence while trying to claim it exists has got to be just sheer intentional stupidity :shake:  

Honestly God is not a "thing" or "person" whose existence should be proven like a stone or Socrates.

Circular rationality and avoidance to the discussion. Nor did you catch on that even if an entity existed, the concept and title of "GOD" is still purely that of opinion! Otherwise it's entirely irrelevant lol. You really do like to ignore arguments and then ramble on as if you never read them. And to say something lays beyond your physical senses is again desperation. A lot of things could lay beyond our senses, this doesn't make them magically capable of not being bound to the rules of existence, or material physicality.

I will gladly accept your argument that your GOD is made of nothing, and exists in a state and place of non-existence..  

A big mistake on both sides is the idea we use "God of the gaps" argument.  For sure, there are theists who do use "God of the gaps" and there are atheists who recognize it and then generalize it to say we all believe in "God of the gaps."

Only GAPS we are filling is between zero and infinity.

As science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith.  Read my signature.  "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain."  We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes.  But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose.  An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

Who built your GOD?
Who designed and created Knowledge into existence
Who designed and created consciousness
who designed and created intelligence
who designed and created existence
who designed and created material physicality so things could actually exist
Who created a place so things can have a place to exist?

And you do also understand that the Christian GOD is actually the Sun GOD stolen from other religions correct? Christianity is pretty much a cut and paste religion. And sorry, primary purpose can only be credited to existence itself! Everything else is just products of existence.

There's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment.  You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."

You do understand the definitions of those correct?

Maybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?

Existence isn't in a cosmic equilibrium, never was. It's a chaotic system to where only on average is there a ground state. And biological processes follow the same rules. and you are also trying to suggest life requires a closed system when that is in fact false. However, you can reference negative free energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

The Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system. This maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy Î"G equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, minus the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[2]

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Good thing we live in an open system to where closed systems are subjective to what you are talking about. And they are not actually talking about literal "negative energy". It's available energy as stated here:

The Gibbs free energy, originally called available energy, was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematician Josiah Willard Gibbs. In 1873, in a footnote[citation needed], Gibbs defined what he called the “available energy” of a body as such:

    The greatest amount of work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the processes are left in their initial condition.

In biochemistry you have this:

Because of the laws of enthalpy and entropy, free energy is always increasing. However, in endothermic reactions, or chemical reactions that require energy to occur, net free energy is negative because the energy is "lost" to the environment as it is bonded in the reaction.

Energy is often defined in reference to something else, and the sign of the energy is a function which direction is flowing. If energy (heat) flows from a system to the environment, the enthalpy change is negative (exothermic), whereas if energy flows from the environment to the system, the enthalpy change is positive (endothermic).

You are still talking about Positive, negative, and neutral attributes of Energy, and existence.

How is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place?  Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium?

Positive, negative, and neutral.


So all you are doing right now is trying to play the explain everything game when you only need to understand the 3 basic rules of existence and where ground state is. Anything between zero and X complexity is entirely irrelevant! Especially to existence since all things above Ground state are products of existence and are not required for existence to exist. That includes any conscious being, entity, or any object or thing in existence!

[TheJackel]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

This right here tells me that you have completely lost this debate both rationally and logically on every single level possible. The existence out side of existence argument to make it possible to toss a string of words to together that allows something to not be bound to existence and can exist in a place and state of non-existence. :eek:

This argument is not better than a Flat Earther trying to claim that Earths circumference is 78 thousand miles with 486 million sq miles of surface area on a flat disk to who proceeds to state it as magical fact while being unable to provide a map, or even data to show that Earth isn't a GLOBE. It takes a lot of intentional ignorance to believe in such nonsense.   :

We are now ending this discussion

If you can reply to this without using energy, matter, complexity, information, material physicality, or the rules of existence.. You can continue this discussion.

[Sophus]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  

[TheJackel]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  lol.. And the funny part is that the biggest difference between me and him in this argument is that I'm not making shit up as I go along . The first thing he tried to do was try and attempt to detach the GOD from the rules of existence since that would obviously collapse the whole GOD theory entirely. But I never thought a Theist would even attempt to do such a foolish thing, especially after I warned him prior to him doing so

Damn, all he had to say is that it's possible that some entity is responsible for this Universe's existence as it is now while being bound to the same rules. I don't think he realizes that an entities existence is irrelevant since the GOD concept itself is just a concept of pure opinion. In order for something to be a GOD, you have to worship it as such! If you don't, then its simply not a GOD!.. Concepts of opinion are technically irrelevant to anyone other than that person who has the opinion. I don't even make the argument that the Big Bang couldn't have been the work, or even an accidental act of other entities! However, I don't deny the possibility of our Universe just being another molecule in a much larger reality, or in infinitely expanding realities either. But he's so bent on professing a creator to existence because anything less can be seen as just another material physical manipulator to which is technically in concept no different than man, or even some little ant! So they invent impossible concepts and then expect rational people to actually believe them.  And those that don't, they attempt to use emotional pleading, brainwashing, and subliminal manipulation as arguments.  :shake:

[Stevil]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Come on guys, this statement is beyond refute.

Actually, someone should trademark this as it would make a great bumper sticker!

[TheJackel]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Come on guys, this statement is beyond refute.

Actually, someone should trademark this as it would make a great bumper sticker!

 :/  I have always told Christians that if they want to believe in a GOD, don't try making an impossible concept sound as if it's possible. It's shooting to high, and it just makes it out to be ridiculous vs actually plausible. Hence, be more realistic :pop:

[Gawen]

It's not much different than Anselm's faulty statement of the ontological argument: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

[Tank]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  

Or putting it another way, he's imaginary.

[Achronos]

This has got to be the most desperate use of irrationality to which I have ever seen come out of a Christians mouth or post on the internet. It's the most desperate form of pleading as well. This is even worse of an argument this argument I got in another forum:

Only GOD can KNOW how to Create Knowledge into existence

People either are intentionally stupid for the sake of circular arguments, or they really are this dumb. And I really hope you are merely trying to play dumb. When you start using Carl Segan's Dragon arguments and then try to tag on attribute of non-existence so it doesn't have to apply to existence while trying to claim it exists has got to be just sheer intentional stupidity :shake:  

What is so desperate about what I wrote?  What I have written have been believed for centuries.  This is nothing new.  I'm simply applying the same beliefs as has been professed before.  You claim to be a Christian before.  Show some sympathy then.  So far, it seems we're just talking past one another, where you call me stupid, and I call you narrow-minded.  I never tagged an attribute of non-existence or existence to God.  I am limited in my discussion of Him.  You compare God to "dragons, sky fairies" and yet you can't understand what I am trying to tell you.  You are unable to understand because you don't want to.  You are narrow-minded, and a pejorative one at that.

Circular rationality and avoidance to the discussion. Nor did you catch on that even if an entity existed, the concept and title of "GOD" is still purely that of opinion! Otherwise it's entirely irrelevant lol. You really do like to ignore arguments and then ramble on as if you never read them. And to say something lays beyond your physical senses is again desperation. A lot of things could lay beyond our senses, this doesn't make them magically capable of not being bound to the rules of existence, or material physicality.

I will gladly accept your argument that your GOD is made of nothing, and exists in a state and place of non-existence..  

Magical?  Place of non-existence?  Obviously, if you were a Christian, you'd understand where I'm coming from as I don't state belief in God is a magical idea, neither is God in a place of non-existence.  In fact where do I even state that?

Who built your GOD?
Who designed and created Knowledge into existence
Who designed and created consciousness
who designed and created intelligence
who designed and created existence
who designed and created material physicality so things could actually exist
Who created a place so things can have a place to exist?

The question "Who built your God" is a logical fallacy if one truly understands how God is defined.  God IS.  That's it.
Your other questions are clear to me the answer is God whether they be directly or indirectly.

And you do also understand that the Christian GOD is actually the Sun GOD stolen from other religions correct? Christianity is pretty much a cut and paste religion. And sorry, primary purpose can only be credited to existence itself! Everything else is just products of existence.

Really?  Is that the best you got?  Calling Christianity a "copy and paste" religion by assuming it was borrowed from a Sun God?  What relevance is it when one says that atheism is nothing but a rehash of Epicurus?  Does that really weaken atheism?  A religion that has aspects of truth doesn't falsify Christianity.  Try arguing something based on its own merits.  Your ways to show similarities to other religions is a form of desperation at this point.

You do understand the definitions of those correct?
Existence isn't in a cosmic equilibrium, never was. It's a chaotic system to where only on average is there a ground state. And biological processes follow the same rules. and you are also trying to suggest life requires a closed system when that is in fact false. However, you can reference negative free energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

The Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system. This maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy Î"G equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, minus the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[2]

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Good thing we live in an open system to where closed systems are subjective to what you are talking about. And they are not actually talking about literal "negative energy". It's available energy as stated here:

The Gibbs free energy, originally called available energy, was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematician Josiah Willard Gibbs. In 1873, in a footnote[citation needed], Gibbs defined what he called the “available energy” of a body as such:

    The greatest amount of work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the processes are left in their initial condition.

In biochemistry you have this:

Because of the laws of enthalpy and entropy, free energy is always increasing. However, in endothermic reactions, or chemical reactions that require energy to occur, net free energy is negative because the energy is "lost" to the environment as it is bonded in the reaction.

Energy is often defined in reference to something else, and the sign of the energy is a function which direction is flowing. If energy (heat) flows from a system to the environment, the enthalpy change is negative (exothermic), whereas if energy flows from the environment to the system, the enthalpy change is positive (endothermic).

You are still talking about Positive, negative, and neutral attributes of Energy, and existence.

Positive, negative, and neutral.

Yes, I know that already.  Everything you wrote.  I was worried I didn't ask it right.

Fine, there is a chaotic element of positive, negative, and neutral.  How is it that positive and negatives never cancel each other out

So all you are doing right now is trying to play the explain everything game when you only need to understand the 3 basic rules of existence and where ground state is. Anything between zero and X complexity is entirely irrelevant! Especially to existence since all things above Ground state are products of existence and are not required for existence to exist.[/u] That includes any conscious being, entity, or any object or thing in existence!

Forgive me if you already explained it or I missed it, but I need to understand more of this.  In the meantime, is this what at present many people use to show that God doesn't exist?

It's not much different than Anselm's faulty statement of the ontological argument: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

This right here tells me that you have completely lost this debate both rationally and logically on every single level possible. The existence out side of existence argument to make it possible to toss a string of words to together that allows something to not be bound to existence and can exist in a place and state of non-existence. :eek:

This argument is not better than a Flat Earther trying to claim that Earths circumference is 78 thousand miles with 486 million sq miles of surface area on a flat disk to who proceeds to state it as magical fact while being unable to provide a map, or even data to show that Earth isn't a GLOBE. It takes a lot of intentional ignorance to believe in such nonsense.  lol. But I get the feeling he thought it was clever to attempt to, or he just decided he would go straight into preaching, and then trolling the subject. There is more nonsense and deflection in his arguments than I would bother wasting my time to count  :shake:

I also think it's pathetic to say that such things don't need to be proven to exist because he says so, and that you should magically believe just because GOD exists as an idea or concept he worships on faith alone. It takes some serious form of brain meltdown to do that. And yes, I once professed and did this same crap to forums like this, and other people, and that is probably why it irks me so much when I see this crap. At least that way there is within the rules of opinion a 100% =/=100% of the existence of a GOD should such an entity actually be shown to exist. What would impress me though is if he came back and showed some humility and accept the fundamental flaws of his arguments.  

You're right.  It's not easy to believe in God.  It takes practice and consistency to do so.  To me, not believing in God requires one to live in a dumpster for years and not knowing that you smell bad.  Believing in God is a sobering experience to me.  Honestly, and I'm not saying this to attract you.  You simply asked how is that we believe in God, and I'm telling you.

[Asmodean]

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."

Heh heh, that's one way of putting it.  :pop: