Logical explanation: why a god must exist

Not now does n´t equate to no-thing...that which is true it is True !

what is "true":
Truth can have a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities. 9you can't go outside it.
Or do you mean "true" as having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal (a standard you can't proof "true".
or is it "true" as a constancy or sincerity in action or character.( a character you can't proof)
"true" as you use it must have a beneficial use in order to be retained and you bring none.You can't plan or predict as it is not reliable, the more reliable and trustworthy an idea (as god exists) is, the more useful and potent it becomes for planning and prediction.
Your idea can't be used anywhere and anytime with maximum reliability it is clearly not generally considered the most powerful and potent "true" either. You should define this potency and applicability of "god exists" you need a "criterium" and bring none.
The method you use to recognize a "true" is your criterium of truth.
Since there is no single accepted criteria for god, they all can be considered "theories".
Theories and views of such truth or true can be debated.
Sure there are differing claims on questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truth bearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
but they stay "theory" and so is your claim "why god must exists" just a theory, just as my counter argument is just a theory. If you want to go to war over a theory be my guest.

1 - Truth is not to be specified beyond the abstract concept of an actual state of affairs which in turn is independent on what we know or don´t know about it...further, it may even be a final set or a re-collection of states of affairs altogether...

2 - ...nothing is to be said upon the epistemic problem of defining Truth.
Truth defines itself.

3 - My claim has nothing to do with the idea of a "God"...at best I would take Einstein´s or Espinoza´s "God"...so pay just a little bit more attention before playing the trigger happy cowboy.

Interesting that longfun comes up with exactly the same conclusion as I do with respect to your concept of Truth (capital T).

The concept of a "state of affairs" independent of an observer is vacuous and your phrase "final set" refers to the same the psychological desire for "closure" as that we can associate with theists.

As Rorty, for example, pointed out, there is no "epistemic problem" in defining "truth". We merely know how to use the word in particular yet shifting contexts. But ineffable Truth (capital T) immediately evokes "spiritual" contexts of a permanent/ultimate/transcendent nature.

Note that if you read Rorty in depth (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature) you will come across his notion that the whole of "epistemology" boils down to historical"conversationalism". (Wittgenstein and Heidegger might have used the more derogatory term Geschwatz). There are no "givens" in philosophy such as Descartes cogito, or Spinoza's substance. This is philosophy playing at scientificism in order to look "professional" and more recently attempting to differentiate itself from psychology.

Are you saying that the universe didn't exist before observers?

Good lord Fresco...can´t you simply see that the very same criteria undermines your very own reading on this ??? How can you honestly continue to avoid my remarks with a straight face ?
What would "social shared concepts" ultimately mean without a true value ? nothing...
Tell me, what would be changing, which without having a true state of affairs would be there to change in the first place ???
...Do you really think I have not seriously considered your point of view after all the talking in all the countless threads we both cross by ? I don´t take you for an idiot playing castles with words, or shooting in every direction like some around, who barely have started to understand what underlies to be found in the craftsman of philosophy... you have your merits that much is fair, you seam to be a reasonable well taught rational person...I am well aware that this perspective that you share is common stance for a great deal of people in the present days...
so what ? Would you address my questions in a straight forward manner ? that would actually be great...

Following "his" criteria what would "observers " even mean to start with ?

Rorty is allot more cautious in what he say´s and imply´s then you and me are altogether...an old fox I reckon...he says nothing on Truth and he totally concentrates on the value of the epistemic problem of "we" speaking about it instead...guess why Fresco, guess why...it may well be to avoid questions like the one´s I just did to you...Rorty takes a "shortcut" on this precisely to prevent the embarrassment of contradicting himself...he does n´t posit that there is or there is no Truth...he only sticks and actually "glues" to the actual value or uncertainty that such endeavour may have for our knowledge of it...SMART !

I am saying that the concept of "existence" implies relationship between observer and observed. We should perhaps say "existence with respect to X".
The thought of "a universe prior to ones birth" relates to a us now by virtue of its perceived causal implications for future events. Time itself is a psychological concept in which the dynamics of relationships are perceived to operate, hence the concept of "before observers" presupposes current minds.

Shared social concepts have "value" in so far as they serve social systems. From a comparative biological point of view, humans are unique in the length of child dependency, their mode of phonetic communication, and their ability to delay a response to a stimulus. (This last one sometimes used to define "intelligence"). Putting those attributes together suggests the basis for complex intercommunicative skills required to plan for manipulation of the "environment" relevant to our species. The self is predicated on competing social allegiences and concordances as to "states of affairs".

You ask what is changing. Such "change" is dependent on point of view and purpose that point of view is adopted. A "self" considers itself to be static but for a third party observer both "self" and "world" change with a necessary inter-dynamic mutuality. (Piagets genetic epistemology). Crudely, explanation and anticipation of "change" could be labelled "scientificism". Such a label takes on a particular meaning with respect to Rorty's anti-epistemology. It suggests that it should not be a separate province called "philosophy". Perhaps philosophers should concern themselves with the attractions of, and alternatives to such scientificism...but then this would not defferentiate it from psychology !

BTW, I am aware that you have "considered" these questions but you are always drawn to a foundationalist argument which requires an axiomatic stance. (Rorty's "givens"). It is my understanding of the impossibility of such a stance which impedes our communication. Note that even "considering" is necessarily paradigmatic. The essential paradigmatic choice is between (epistemological and ontological) pragmatism on my part, and foundationalism on yours.

With respect to the OP, I hold that it is perfectly understandable for some to ev0ke the "existence" of a deity from a pragmatic point of view. Logicality is irrelevant to ontological claims, because it itself is predicated on ontological "givens" like static set membership. The central issue is not about ontology or epistemology, it is about social pragmatics. But to recognize the issue as such would be to undermine the covert psychological and social functionalism from which the ontological claim originated. This is why the force-field "Faith" is operative in order to ring-fence theistic claims from potentially infinite levels of damaging deconstructive exposure.

Functionalism does not undermine Truth in any way, on the contrary it resolves the debate...well established functions between operators (I will avoid observers) don´t relativize "state of affairs", any more then grounding them in the specificity of the relation, a particular operative algorithm which has true value in those circumstances...at best you have a re-collection of states of affairs, a set of potential operative functions...

As an example I will simply say that:

The particularity by which everyone of us makes his own driving on the road does n´t make the car or the driving less real...

Relativity does n´t say that states of affairs are not real or that they don´t have true value, but instead acknowledges the operative true value of each particular circumstance in which they apply...

...and this distinction is a fundamental step to understand why "your´s groups view" is fundamentally wrong...not in its process but in its final claim against Truth !
As also in the astonishing idea that "observers" is only applied to conscious beings instead understanding it as a human synonym term or expression for FUNCTION itself on its connected operativeness...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Are you saying that the universe didn't exist before observers? Yes or no.

I am saying that the question is meaningless because both "existence" and "before" presuppose the observer who defines them. Berkeley attempted to resolve it by postulating "God" as an "ultimate observer".

As "nothing" has some remarkable properties (all being potential in quantity) I'm not surprised to observe so many different concepts, In a sense they are all true. You just need to take one stand, proven or not, (add some "true??" value) and you're able to declare the rest false. It is that easy.
I consider any point of view more or less valid in relation to the poster and to each other, in relation to "quantified-thing" they are equally false or true as they emerge from the potential properties of "unidentified -thing".
If one wants to belief "A", fine as long as one doesn't prevent the other to belief "B" or even prevents the other to look for "B".
But that again can't be expected from a believer as it reduces any idea (in this case god) to a concept within a belief and no longer a truth, The believer want's this concept to transcend his belief.
Any believers (religious or otherwise) have in my view and if they don't ignore the other opinions, a hard time coping with this balance, it is they who need to find out for themselves (if they want to) if their belief is true (the same goes for any a-theist).
So I don't feel sorry for any of them, as it is a choice to meet conflicts in areas where different opinions are (relatively) unequally valued.
(I hope this sounds right, as it also means that any religious sacrifice or slaughter of any kind anywhere in history is only important to the believers and doesn't make any same valued point to the outsider or none-believer, as his attention is focused on something else)

Once you leave this planet, time ceases to exist, as time cannot function in space .

Time does function in space, so not sure where you are getting your information, or perhaps you have a little more to explain by what you mean. Time is not dependent upon being on the planet.

I know rite!!! If we all lived in space, none of us would grow old and die!

Hmmm I suppose the logical Question to ask is 'Has anything ever cease to exist?' I mean yes sure transformed from energy and mass and vise vesa yes! But cease to exist? I dont know phisics! see cant even speel it. So if you do, Tell me is that possible?

There is only one logical explanation why a god must exist, and it's really very simple: If god does not exist, how can i justify my narccisism?