What precisely do you mean by the term 'existence'? It would seem to me that the term entails all that there is, for we can neither speak nor think of anything non-existent.
To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise.
It follows then that if God is existence itself, then God is the source of all that there is - past, present and future.
I think dose God exists is the wrong question. The question should be, should God exists. The reson I think this is that this question is God good for us or not.
Also it is impossible to convince someone God exists if they disregard the evidence. So I need other ways to convince people.
Deleted UserFebruary 12, 2019 at 22:47#2552940 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Metaphysician UndercoverFebruary 12, 2019 at 22:58#2553010 likes
in this thread, God's existence is granted, being supposed herein to be at the least not any less real than Samuel Johnson's stone (that he kicked) - or for that matter any degree of real beyond that you care to make Him.
As I might very well be the most atheist on this forum (at least from what I've read), looking at it as given that God exists, it reminded me of John Wisdom's Gardener tale, here modified by Antony Flew:
Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves. At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?
I would answer, it is irrelevant. If God were proven to be, but not here, not able to interact with us and the world just follows the same physic rules as ever, having us through science and technology tame this nature and universe, without any interaction from that God, then who cares if God is real?
For me, it becomes a stone in the forest. You believe it's there, its form, you can describe it: it is pale, not black, it doesn't look like any stone and you know, in your deepest, that it is there. You one day go into the forest and you find the stone... now what?
Reply to tim wood I'm saying your right. To most people don't think a God would change anything
But if you want an argument here it is. Is God exists for all intended peposes. Then only thoughts who look for him would have any benefit. God has a plan, this plan gives purpose. Purpose make us able to get thought the bad (man's search for meaning). God is a guide, not a force. He can actually as one but he wants us to trust him despite that. He may go for an intervention but only if it's a part of his plan.
To the outsider it would look like a blind fath but God would have earned there trust. Those who leave him did not have enough fath.
He is not irelivent just not visible to the hole
Deleted UserFebruary 12, 2019 at 23:05#2553120 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 12, 2019 at 23:09#2553160 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Actually the only thing I can think of right now is that if it were verified that god did exist, there would be lots and lots of people either sucking up to him wanting favors or trying to dissect him to find out how he works.
I think this thread is a clever way to refute the ontological argument. Turning it around shows very nicely that "existence" simply is not an attribute that can be connected to other attributes.
The best one can do is take the notion that it "exists like a rock does", and conclude that God must therefore have some spatial and temporal extension and some observable attribute.
Never mind larks on the wing, snails slithering over the thorn, Robert Browning. CO2 levels are rising, our celestial orb is heating up, insect populations are crashing, God is in His heaven and the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
- takes the pressure off life a bit if there is some kind of afterlife (could also be seen as a negative thing)
- helps with finding value in suffering - good for mental health in adversity
- good for mental health to believe that one's innermost centre is indestructible
- helpful in cultivating a sense of oneness with the natural world
- helpful in developing creatively to believe in an inner spontaneous source of newness, and the imperative to create and express
- helpful to believe that death is not the ultimate evil - avoidance of death can result in inauthentic living
- helps in understanding the world as panpsychic
I don't mean to imply any exclusivity here. Atheists and other kinds of theists also can develop attitudes, values and ways of thinking from which they can derive similar benefits, no doubt.
I could also come up with a list of negative ones, but most of them would be for a God I did not believe in.
Terrapin StationFebruary 13, 2019 at 13:35#2555120 likes
To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise.
My own view is that the idea of God is metaphorically like a fir tree in a forest that men, in almost every case men, have come and cut down and removed from the forest to decorate and festoon with streamers and ribbons and ornaments and hangers and lights and symbols and baubles and icons
Look at a random image from the Sistene Chapel ceiling while listening to Mozart's Requiem. Long live the baubles.
Terrapin StationFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:09#2555300 likes
The importance is not in what you derive from God,
So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone?
Rank AmateurFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:10#2555310 likes
Wondering if the O/P is just an invitation to the same old do loop of having someone make a faith based claim, then challenge it based on reason. The argument is not, what God is or is not, the argument is why is there a need to challenge faith based claims with reason? If a theist makes some claim about the nature of God, and says this description of such a being is based on reason - have at them. I will even join you.
The underlying issue is why does the agnostic/atheist contingent have such a difficult time with epistemic humility? Why does there appear such a need to disparage a belief that one can not muster a reasoned case that it is in fact false. I see no party having any high ground in the an explanation of the creation of the universe. My reasoned arguments for an un-created creator is as valid as you reasoned arguments. Epistemic humility would dictate we value each others beliefs with generosity.
Terrapin StationFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:15#2555330 likes
I would answer, it is irrelevant. If God were proven to be, but not here, not able to interact with us and the world just follows the same physic rules as ever, having us through science and technology tame this nature and universe, without any interaction from that God, then who cares if God is real?
I'm not saying this because I believe it, but I'm aware of the views.
A lot of people believe that
* We do interact with God regularly during our worldly lives; just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)
* Our faith in God enriches our lives in many different ways
* We interact with God after death
* How we interact with God after death depends on what our beliefs were during our Earthly life.
Terrapin StationFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:17#2555350 likes
It's simply a matter of a lot of people not being able to, or not being comfortable with accepting a belief "on faith alone." So when we're talking about beliefs that have no support other than faith, the folks who aren't able to or aren't comfortable accepting anything on faith grounds alone are going to balk at the idea. Curious people are going to ask questions about it, they're going to wonder how others can be comfortable with it, etc.
Metaphysician UndercoverFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:25#2555380 likes
So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone?
No, I don't thing anything can be derived from God's existence alone. What can be derived from one premise? "God exists", alone, without any defining statements, is just a statement of ambiguity.
The underlying issue is why does the agnostic/atheist contingent have such a difficult time with epistemic humility? Why does there appear such a need to disparage a belief that one can not muster a reasoned case that it is in fact false. I see no party having any high ground in the an explanation of the creation of the universe. My reasoned arguments for an un-created creator is as valid as you reasoned arguments. Epistemic humility would dictate we value each others beliefs with generosity.
It is difficult to hold a belief and not have that belief influence your actions in some way. Not everyone accepts that faith has some unique epistemic standing alongside reason. One might argue that faith is merely a label used to hide - and therefore sustain - cognitive dissonance.
Now the question "why do you care" is justified. And I think that in the case of many theists, there is no reason to care, and humility is the most healthy reaction. On the other hand, religions are a real and powerful phenomenon, and so are various "cult like" groups. Contrasting faith and reason and asking for reasonable arguments to support beliefs is an important step towards curtailing the power of these groups. After all, if basing your beliefs on reason is not important, what are we all doing here?
None of that actually logically follows from god's existence, though. It only follows if we assume a variety of beliefs about god.
Oh, I see, sorry that was a prescription of the OP. I didn't read it properly, my bad.
In that we case we do need to delve into what it means to believe 'God exists'. We need a minimum set of characteristics or properties of God that the OP has granted. As it stands, the term 'God' is an empty variable. It's not clear what the OP has generously granted us theists. Is it just physical existence? That's not enough to capture any concept of God though. Physically, I think God is space, but that's because it fits some other traditionally Goddish qualities, like invisibility, omnipresence, solidity, partlessness, simplicity, immortality, self-movingness, etc.
ChristofferFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:41#2555460 likes
* We do interact with God regularly during our worldly lives; just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)
* Our faith in God enriches our lives in many different ways
* We interact with God after death
* How we interact with God after death depends on what our beliefs were during our Earthly life.
There are no signs at all of interacting with God, a cake enrich my life and it wasn't made by God, you cannot confirm that you will interact with God after death and how we interact is also not confirmed because of the first unconfirmed.
And, because of all that, John Wisdom's gardener-analogy applies, because Correlation does not equal causation - a common fallacy and one that believers make every day.
If we accept God as real, there are no signs of God, so the most logical conclusion is that if God existed, he's the gardener in the analogy. The only reason many people believe those things is because they were taught so, not by observing it. And if observing something they couldn't explain, they would get answers from religion based on other observations in history that also didn't get a rational explanation.
The only rational conclusion, if we were to accept God as existing, would be that God doesn't interfere or involve with us at all, which of course then leads us back to the gardener-analogy.
Terrapin StationFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:44#2555470 likes
There are no signs at all of interacting with God, a cake enrich my life and it wasn't made by God, you cannot confirm that you will interact with God after death and how we interact is also not confirmed because of the first unconfirmed.
Again, the idea is that this is "just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)"
People who believe these things DO believe that there are signs of interacting with God. It changes their lives in their view, changes their mental/emotional states, their relationships with others, etc.
Rank AmateurFebruary 13, 2019 at 14:50#2555510 likes
People who believe these things DO believe that there are signs of interacting with God. It changes their lives in their view, changes their mental/emotional states, their relationships with others, etc.
Wasn't the point of this to evaluate what's the point if there was a God? And if there was a God, based on the common arguments that only points to a God that is so detached from us and our world, it becomes absurd to rely on that God or think we see causation where there is no correlation?
And as a side-note, I would argue that those people invite disaster, per my irrational belief argument in another thread. It breaks epistemic responsibility and is in my opinion unethical to apply to the world, since it only benefits the self, which, by almost all moral teaching equals immoral behavior. And even if God existed it would still be so, since it opens the door for murder in Gods name because of such irrational belief. Perhaps this thread may give me some thoughts on how to improve that argument since it actually is detached from any causality argument for God.
Terrapin StationFebruary 13, 2019 at 15:10#2555610 likes
Wasn't the point of this to evaluate what's the point if there was a God?
I wasn't addressing the "overall point" of the thread. Just the one small bit that I quoted from your post (in relation to beliefs that are common among theists).
ChristofferFebruary 13, 2019 at 15:11#2555620 likes
I wasn't addressing the "overall point" of the thread. Just the one small bit that I quoted from your post (in relation to beliefs that are common among theists).
In that case, I would regard the points on what people believe outside causality arguments to be unethical, per my other thread.
Rank AmateurFebruary 13, 2019 at 15:57#2555730 likes
Not everyone accepts that faith has some unique epistemic standing alongside reason.
I would argue, that we all face situations continually that require our full commitment of something important, and have incomplete information on the possible outcomes. Proceeding in these situations to one degree or another requires a faith based action. Are these some type of epistemic knowledge or not - I think more semantic than important.
One might argue that faith is merely a label used to hide - and therefore sustain - cognitive dissonance.
I would counter as above that it is a natural part of the human belief system that is required when the application of fact or reason is insufficient, yet action is required.
On the other hand, religions are a real and powerful phenomenon, and so are various "cult like" groups. Contrasting faith and reason and asking for reasonable arguments to support beliefs is an important step towards curtailing the power of these groups. After all, if basing your beliefs on reason is not important, what are we all doing here?
agree - with a small change. Religion, is a man made institution with all that that entails. And there is no argument that there has been many awful things done in the name of God. Challenging religion is always healthy. Faith is not by definition either good or bad, it is just a belief that is not supported by fact or reason.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 15:57#2555740 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 16:11#2555760 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Cool. If god is no less real the Johnson’s stone, then we’ll at least get to see what he looks like, the reality of a stone being common to everybody.
Cooler. The end of organized differential religions. “Praise be to stone” has no more import than “Amen to stone” when all there is to work with is a reality no less so than stone.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 16:49#2555880 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 13, 2019 at 16:56#2555900 likes
So it struck me to challenge any of these to make clear how it might matter if the existence of God were granted.
well - faith based for sure - but because of that belief - i have been, with various degrees of limited effectiveness, been trying to live by this first principal for quite some time. Because this provides a meaning for my existence.
[i]God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.
God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.
From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.
For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.[/i]
God in fact, in reality, and God in mind as idea, are two very different creatures. Which way are you? If fact, what can you get from that fact?
I will try, I have never made any claim whatsoever about the nature of God, in fact I would challenge any one - theist or atheist on what possible basis one could have to make such a claim. God is a very real thing to me, and very much an idea.
but yet again - these are matters of faith, of theology, not philosophy
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:14#2555930 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:28#2555950 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:32#2555970 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:32#2555980 likes
Reply to tim wood by real, do you mean like a human form sitting in taverna in ios drinking coffee and staring at the fishing boats ?? or real as some being outside our senses, but real none the less ? such as love or truth ? Can you give me some sideboards on what you mean by real?
Yes. One looks with mind. The chapel is ultimately a distraction (sez I) however pleasurable. But the tree speaks life. Is it possible two posters on this site might however briefly be on the same page?
I'm sure during times when I was wildness-deprived, I would have agreed. I get my fill pretty regularly these days. Are you speaking out of hunger by chance?
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:38#2556000 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:52#2556030 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 13, 2019 at 17:54#2556050 likes
My point in this thread is to challenge those who argue relentlessly that God is at least, say, as real as a stone, to make clear what follows from that existence, it being granted
I find it's attention, the ability to attend, that matters. The tree engages, while chapels become tiresome. May I infer you've aged out of the city to the country?
I grew up beside a forest and then lived in a big city, then wandered a lot.
The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only.
God is sexless, timeless, benevolent and powerful:
1. Sexless: Not the product of bisexual reproduction so sexless.
2. Timeless: An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible. So God must be timeless.
3. Benevolent: Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.
4. Powerful: He created the universe so he must be.
...
5. Easily bored. Created universe to amuse himself.
6. Not a micro manager. Does not get involved in day to day running of universe.
7. Likes to do things on a grand scale (size of universe).
Of course existence as a predicate is useless, if there's no subject that the predicate is a predicate of.
It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 20:54#2556390 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise.
— Jehu
Couldn't you speak about something you imagine?
As an author of fantasy novels who regularly writes about dragons and stuff, I certainly hope one can. I would hate to think I had merely hallucinated all the pages I have written.
BTW, dragons have qualities. Most of them have the quality of being fire-breathing. All of them have the quality of being imaginary.
It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied.
"Donald Trump exists."
This statement provides information about Donald Trump, namely that he does not belong to the class of objects (dragons, Bilbo Baggins, Superman, the fountain of youth, etc etc etc) that do not exist.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 21:10#2556420 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 13, 2019 at 21:14#2556430 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood By his works shall we know him. Some of my deductions do use the fact that God, if he exists, created the universe, but I'd argue that is derived from the definition of the term God so its fair play.
In order to speak of anything you must first be able to say what that thing is; i.e., what its nature is, and if we are able to say 'what it is' then we cannot deny 'that it is'. We are well within our right to say that one thing partakes of an actual existence, while another partakes of only an imaginary existence, but we cannot deny that the imaginary thing does not partake of any mode of existence at all.
Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.
Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.
Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 04:13#2557050 likes
Reply to tim wood If I understand you correctly you mean to show that the properties generally attributed to God are not deducible from just the mere fact of God's existence. If so, you should have used the word "creator" and not "God" because the former, by definition, possesses all the properties/attributes of God. A small error.
I don't think we can derive the necessary attributes of God from nothing more than an existence of a creator. However, it is not impossible so I'll try it here. A being that can create a universe must be omnipotent and also omniscient. Without omniscience the being wouldn't have the knowledge to create a universe. An omniscient being would understand morality completely and therefore would be omnibenevolent. So, there you have it. The existence of a creator implies an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God.
Deleted UserFebruary 14, 2019 at 04:35#2557090 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 04:45#2557110 likes
The task is to exhibit what if anything can be derived from the existence of a particular being, God.
But God is defined as all-good/knowing/powerful. If you grant that God exists then these are part of the package. Why ask a redundant question?
Ergo you must be talking about the cosmological argument - a creator being. Even if such a being should exist we wouldn't be warranted to deduce omnibenevolence. Only then your question makes sense.
Deleted UserFebruary 14, 2019 at 04:58#2557150 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 05:03#2557170 likes
And did you not see where all-good, all-powerful, is inconsistent?
I'll give it another try...
Ok. Which of the 3 god attributes will you accept?
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. All good
I'm going to rely on the cosmological argument which you accept of course since this thread begins with acceptance of God's existence.
If a being (God) can create a universe then God must be all powerful.
As creating something is not only about ''what to do'' but also about ''how to do'' God must be all-knowing.
If God is all-knowing then it must be that God has perfect knowledge of morality. If so, God must be all good.
The omnipotent-omnibenevolent problem is a problem for ''us'' and not for God. Could a chimpanzee understand our motivations to conserve its species when a ranger darts it unconscious, puts it in a cage and takes it to another location?
Deleted UserFebruary 14, 2019 at 05:23#2557220 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 08:53#2557510 likes
None. This isn't about what I'll buy; it's about what you can demonstrate is a consequence of existence. You want him to be all powerful? Fine, but that God is your idea. Besides, just what is all powerful? And don't start any mind/language games here.
Look, if I want to define a horse as a four-legged animal, you in turn might mock and ridicule me for whatever reason. But I can exhibit a horse, and we can jointly investigate phenomena in some way and at some level appropriate to a discussion concerning what a horse is. In short, on horses and wide variety of other things, we have recourse to unimpeachable authorities - or we moderate our claims to comport with those authorities. But the trouble with our topic is no such authority or authorities exist. Which in itself is suggestive....
But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. Just the existence of an x is not enough to pronounce x as God. Also, it seems to me that you're being unfair because God's other attributes aren't derived from His existence alone, although I've tried to prove it with the cosmological argument, which you don't accept.
You are aware that the ideas of an omnipotent God and a perfect or a perfectly good God are inconsistent with each other, yes?
If it's impossible to change the universe after it is brought into being then God could be omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent and the problem of evil goes away.
So for example, if you believe in an eternalist universe, God changing things in the present would destroy an already extant future... so it maybe impossible for him to change anything... and the definition of omnipotent does not extend to achieving the impossible.
Terrapin StationFebruary 14, 2019 at 09:41#2557610 likes
But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too.
It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing else follows from that even if they were to succeed. No one seems to bother coming up with what they believe are novel, blockbuster arguments proving any of the other supposed attributes.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 10:06#2557700 likes
It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing else follows from that even if they were to succeed. No one seems to bother coming up with what they believe are novel, blockbuster arguments proving any of the other supposed attributes
But then it was incorrect to make the OP about God. It should've been about a creator being. The OP quibbles between creator and God.
The fact is a creator doesn't necessarily have to be good but God has to be.
However, if someone's starting premise is that God exists then all God's attributes must exist too.
Terrapin StationFebruary 14, 2019 at 10:07#2557710 likes
I don't think it's necessarily a monotheistic god, necessarily an omnipotent god, etc.
StaggeringBlowFebruary 14, 2019 at 11:57#2557900 likes
If God exists and revealed Himself to all humanity, because he is our creator, we would recognized him instantly. He has not done so, so, there is no proof that God exists.
My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that.
kill jepettoFebruary 14, 2019 at 12:18#2557940 likes
No. God doesn't exist - you would benefit from using the term 'natural forcesinvolved in the big bang and vessel-selection-process.'
Words are an abstraction of reality; to name 'natural forces involved in the vessel-selection-process', God, is firstly, an abstraction of the reality of these forces, and finally, inaccurate therefore.
It seems, people who have no answers, use God, for no other answer exists for our reference; not to mention it refers to a holy book, but given you're implying God is the dictionary definition, we'll skip the theatrics...
You can theorize all day different definitions for God, such as 'the multi-verse', 'light', 'the status quo', but these aren't the definition of God, that is 'deity' or 'higher power'.
'The status quo' exists, we can sense it; why would you reduce the status quo, named accurately, to God? Then you will use this knowledge immaturely, by going to church, rather than helping/hindering the status quo?
At most, the word is useful when defined as 'pointer to forces that we currently do not know about until further notice...'
Can your mind grow out of God, and actually define the higher forces in question? If not, please stop redefining God as you please, it's silly use of words technology.
What follows from existence? Some or all of the following: distinguishability, perceptibility, reasonable inferrability, etc. I'm not sure where that gets us, and why this is interesting. We can do the same with anything. I grant you your horse, but the only thing I grant you is its existence. What follows from that? I'm struggling to understand the significance of this line of enquiry.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 12:52#2558040 likes
The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only.
have to say I am perplexed by the question. Not that that is hard to do. Firstly it seems you are not defining what this "god" is that you are granting existence, but are arguing with Reply to TheMadFool when he tries to do so, i think arguing that he can't derive them from just existence. If i substitute "tim wood' for god in the o/p if i can't assign Tim Wood any characteristics not sure what is left to derive about you, based on your existence, other than you exist. By the simple granting of your existence I cant derive if Tim is a good man who loves well, or is a mass murderer or much or anything else of importance.
Could be lack of my intellect, but each time I try to answer with the way the O/P is worded - not sure what anyone could derive about anything by simply allowing its existence but not defining it or allowing other definitions about its characteristics.
TheMadFoolFebruary 14, 2019 at 16:43#2558810 likes
Good. Existence isn't enough. Think about that. Whatever you say or think about God is either derived from His existence, or something else - the something else, whatever it might be, being not God. You refer to other attributes, but since you do not, cannot, get them from a God even one whose existence is granted, then where do you get them (not a rhetorical question)?
I understand what you mean. You want to say that the just existence is not enough for any concept of God. God's other attributes are not inferrable from plain existence. God's other attributes may be regarded as accessory that need their own proofs. I agree.
But...
The difficulty in proving God's existence is in the part you deliberately subtract - omnibenevolence. What I'm saying is it is tough to prove an omnibenevolent, omnscient and omnipotent God exists. Theists aren't concerned only about existence. They are concerned that a well-defined God exists.
What you're doing here is like ''Ok. Unicorns exist. So what?'' The problem is that a unicorn is a horse with horns and it is these attributes that weigh in on its existence or nonexistence. We can't say unicorns exist without also accepting the horse and the horn.
kill jepettoFebruary 14, 2019 at 16:54#2558850 likes
In my opinion omnipotence is added to God, and be subtracted whenever, because God is a way to worship such a thing I do not like, you do so scientifically. I worship the status quo in light of heaven and hell (what's also added to God); key; worshipping the status quo; benefiting the status quo.
What goes around comes around; things like karma are implied by the status quo; the Earth is sustainable and we can benefit it by tapping into it's potential; dying with a success in mind. Who's to say it is the best success, but is it's success valuable? Murder, is it wrong? (people's lifes hold particular value); morality is to do with beneficence or malefience to the greater system; in a universe as chaotic as this lot's is forgiven; lot's of value is determined good, and you can be beneficent or maleficent. Simple logic is, if you aren't, you will either go to hell, degraded or even just not given entry into the better lives. Why should anyone be nice to you if they catch you?
Deleted UserFebruary 14, 2019 at 20:11#2559650 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 14, 2019 at 20:14#2559660 likes
If you're not seeing the problem, then you're like someone from the home out on a hayride to appreciate the colors - that is, on a fool's ride. But it's really easy to get off the hay wagon and stop being a fool. All you have to do is think, and not even too much of that!
and the evidence that you are not just on a different hay ride is ???
Deleted UserFebruary 14, 2019 at 21:00#2559850 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurFebruary 14, 2019 at 21:01#2559860 likes
Please keep in mind I am by no means at all anti-God or an atheist or even agnostic. I simply reject the particular efforts of foolish people who try with foolish premises and foolish arguments to prove what cannot be proved, and if it were proved, would be without significance i.e. the material existence of God
Please keep in mind I am by no means at all anti-God or an atheist or even agnostic. I simply reject the particular efforts of foolish people who try with foolish premises and foolish arguments to prove what cannot be proved, and if it were proved, would be without significance i.e. the material existence of God.
A goal of philosophy is understanding the nature of the universe and that includes understanding if there is a God and the nature of God.
If God exists, there is plenty we can deduce about him:
If God exists and revealed Himself to all humanity, because he is our creator, we would recognized him instantly. He has not done so, so, there is no proof that God exists.
My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that.
I think that this perspective is flawed. In order that a human being could recognize God if He revealed Himself, one would have to already have an idea of what God is. Without that idea of what God is, it would be impossible to recognize God, no matter what He did to reveal Himself.
So prior to recognizing God, in His actual existence, we need to understand what God is. This is necessary in order that we could recognize God's actual existence when He reveals Himself to us. And, in order to understand what God is, someone must demonstrate, prove to you, what God is, because you cannot recognize Him based on what He has revealed,.as He cannot reveal Himself to you until you are capable of recognizing Him. So it is necessary that God be proven to you prior to God revealing Himself to you.
Deleted UserFebruary 15, 2019 at 14:27#2562200 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood But we have to have a definition of the term God before we can do any reasoning:
1. God is defined as creator of the universe
2. God exists is given
3. So God created the universe
4. So God must be powerful and intelligent to create the universe
5. And so on (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620)
kill jepettoFebruary 15, 2019 at 14:36#2562250 likes
God is not some all powerful thing, it's unfair, that's someone in heaven; where's contradiction to God who gets to be God? Don't you see there are many higher forces, many things in heaven instead. God, if anything, is improperly named because it refers to one, and if you're intelligent on the matter leads to better framework for knowledge of such a type.
I like the joke that the foremost existence is God; that could be one man.
Reply to kill jepetto On the multiplicity of God, if there are many things in heaven, they can be traced back in a casual hierarchy of creation to a single creator, who we could then regard as God. Or we could regard the one thing that gave the order for the universe to be created as God.
Deleted UserFebruary 15, 2019 at 15:17#2562400 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Another thought, accepting that god exists would also accept that devils and angels also exist. As the saying goes, you can't have one without the others.
Does that make it more complicated to derive anything from the existence of god? If anything can be attributed to god then we should be able to do the same for the rest of them.
Anyone want to describe the devil? :naughty:
purple-reindeerFebruary 20, 2019 at 22:12#2580020 likes
The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only.
For me, the essential question here is "what is existence?". I think that an objects (or a Gods for that matter) existence is its properties. In that case, your exercise would not change if you replaced God with, say, an apple. Whenever I imagine an apple, I see something red, fairly round, delicious, etc. Those qualities are what makes it an apple. In fact, I bet anyone of us would have major difficulties imagining an apple without imagining any of its properties, and the same is true for God. Existence without property is non-existence. Therefore, alone the fact that God exists means that he has properties, and the fact that he has properties (e.g. omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc.) lead to the conclusion that he is relevant to human beings, for instance:
- takes the pressure off life a bit if there is some kind of afterlife (could also be seen as a negative thing)
- helps with finding value in suffering - good for mental health in adversity
- good for mental health to believe that one's innermost centre is indestructible
- helpful in cultivating a sense of oneness with the natural world
- helpful in developing creatively to believe in an inner spontaneous source of newness, and the imperative to create and express
- helpful to believe that death is not the ultimate evil - avoidance of death can result in inauthentic living
- helps in understanding the world as panpsychic
Deleted UserFebruary 21, 2019 at 00:55#2580210 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
purple-reindeerFebruary 21, 2019 at 07:26#2580520 likes
Whenever I imagine an apple, I see something red, fairly round, delicious, etc.
These, for instance.
Deleted UserFebruary 21, 2019 at 14:26#2581000 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
purple-reindeerFebruary 22, 2019 at 19:40#2584790 likes
I did think about it before answering, it is just that I don't believe that there is any difference between an "imagined" apple with all the properties that a "real" apple has (except for one, that one being empirical detectability) and a "real" apple.
As this problem doesn't even arise in question to God (unless someone believes he is empirically detectable, but in that case he'd be either "real" or have at least one property and ergo he'd be relevant already), the "imagined" God is the "real" God.
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2019 at 19:57#2584840 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
purple-reindeerFebruary 22, 2019 at 20:23#2584900 likes
For an imagined apple! The question is, what properties do you say an apple has. It is not a trick question, but you may care to read it carefully and think about it before answering.
So what you're saying is you're content with the properties I proposed for an apple - an imaginary apple opposed to a "real" apple that is - but when I argue that a real apple is the same as an imaginary apple when it comes to their overall properties Quoting purple-reindeer
I did think about it before answering, it is just that I don't believe that there is any difference between an "imagined" apple with all the properties that a "real" apple has (except for one, that one being empirical detectability) and a "real" apple.
suddenly you don't approve of the properties?
Deleted UserFebruary 22, 2019 at 20:41#2584980 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
OK, so Berkeleyan idealism is that an object is nothing other than its perceived qualities, if I remember correctly.
So, applying this to God, if that is what you are getting at, if God is to exist then he is nothing other than his perceived qualities. Is that the line of thinking you are trying to elicit?
Deleted UserFebruary 23, 2019 at 17:00#2587010 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
But first let us satisfy ourselves that the parish-pump idea of the necessity (or even the desirability) of a real existing God can be dispensed with as the immature wishfull thinking that it is.
In this thread are you trying to address this then? I think that one conception of god has a real physical instantiation. But you won't let me talk about it because I am not allowed a definition of 'God', all I am allowed is his existence. I can't get anywhere with that. And that's not just a problem with God, that's a problem with anything. I can't determine whether horses exist or not if you won't allow me a concept of 'horse'. It's easy to show why. Take a prokkjellyvunt. Do they exist? Well, it's hard to say, until we know what I mean by prokkjellyvunt. Maybe its a matchstick construction that I built on my desk with glue, and I have named it so. Then to show it exists I could take some photos of it and send them to you.
1. The cosmoligical argument.
2. The teleological argument
3. The ontological argument
I'd say 1 and 2, if accepted, i.e. God exists, doesn't achieve much because his goodness yet remains unproven.
However, 3. the ontological proof does prove EVERYTHING about God (omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence), after all God is the most perfect being possible in that argument.
Perhaps you can show how your definition is of something.
The object of a definition is a word. We define words, not things. The word 'God' definitely exists. And it is trivial to make a definition, (e.g. let 'God' mean that which created the universe), as you say we can define anything any way we like. The more difficult and interesting question is, does the word 'God' (once we have defined it) have a referent?
So, for a quick and dirty example:
Let 'God' be that which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Is there anything which exists that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient?
I think there is, I think space is all these things. Space is certainly omnipresent. If omnipotence is conceived not in terms of 'can do any random sentence with a verb in it' but in terms of 'all the power to act that there is', then space is omnipotent in the sense that it does everything. If omniscience is conceived not in terms of 'knows every proposition' but in terms of 'consciousness being everywhere throughout its being', and it is logically impossible for consciousness to be emergent (as I have argued ad nauseum elsewhere), then space is omniscient.
...therefore the referent of 'God' is space.
------------
In all this I argue from a definition, plus observations/things we already know about, to a conclusion about something's existence. To insist I start with existence and nothing else is strange, and I don't understand why you would do that.
Comments (126)
What precisely do you mean by the term 'existence'? It would seem to me that the term entails all that there is, for we can neither speak nor think of anything non-existent.
To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise.
It follows then that if God is existence itself, then God is the source of all that there is - past, present and future.
Also it is impossible to convince someone God exists if they disregard the evidence. So I need other ways to convince people.
The importance is not in what you derive from God, it is in what you understand when you recognize the need to assume God.
As I might very well be the most atheist on this forum (at least from what I've read), looking at it as given that God exists, it reminded me of John Wisdom's Gardener tale, here modified by Antony Flew:
Quoting John Wisdom
To the question:
Quoting tim wood
I would answer, it is irrelevant. If God were proven to be, but not here, not able to interact with us and the world just follows the same physic rules as ever, having us through science and technology tame this nature and universe, without any interaction from that God, then who cares if God is real?
For me, it becomes a stone in the forest. You believe it's there, its form, you can describe it: it is pale, not black, it doesn't look like any stone and you know, in your deepest, that it is there. You one day go into the forest and you find the stone... now what?
But if you want an argument here it is. Is God exists for all intended peposes. Then only thoughts who look for him would have any benefit. God has a plan, this plan gives purpose. Purpose make us able to get thought the bad (man's search for meaning). God is a guide, not a force. He can actually as one but he wants us to trust him despite that. He may go for an intervention but only if it's a part of his plan.
To the outsider it would look like a blind fath but God would have earned there trust. Those who leave him did not have enough fath.
He is not irelivent just not visible to the hole
I think this thread is a clever way to refute the ontological argument. Turning it around shows very nicely that "existence" simply is not an attribute that can be connected to other attributes.
The best one can do is take the notion that it "exists like a rock does", and conclude that God must therefore have some spatial and temporal extension and some observable attribute.
Never mind larks on the wing, snails slithering over the thorn, Robert Browning. CO2 levels are rising, our celestial orb is heating up, insect populations are crashing, God is in His heaven and the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
- takes the pressure off life a bit if there is some kind of afterlife (could also be seen as a negative thing)
- helps with finding value in suffering - good for mental health in adversity
- good for mental health to believe that one's innermost centre is indestructible
- helpful in cultivating a sense of oneness with the natural world
- helpful in developing creatively to believe in an inner spontaneous source of newness, and the imperative to create and express
- helpful to believe that death is not the ultimate evil - avoidance of death can result in inauthentic living
- helps in understanding the world as panpsychic
I don't mean to imply any exclusivity here. Atheists and other kinds of theists also can develop attitudes, values and ways of thinking from which they can derive similar benefits, no doubt.
I could also come up with a list of negative ones, but most of them would be for a God I did not believe in.
Couldn't you speak about something you imagine?
Look at a random image from the Sistene Chapel ceiling while listening to Mozart's Requiem. Long live the baubles.
So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone?
The underlying issue is why does the agnostic/atheist contingent have such a difficult time with epistemic humility? Why does there appear such a need to disparage a belief that one can not muster a reasoned case that it is in fact false. I see no party having any high ground in the an explanation of the creation of the universe. My reasoned arguments for an un-created creator is as valid as you reasoned arguments. Epistemic humility would dictate we value each others beliefs with generosity.
I'm not saying this because I believe it, but I'm aware of the views.
A lot of people believe that
* We do interact with God regularly during our worldly lives; just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)
* Our faith in God enriches our lives in many different ways
* We interact with God after death
* How we interact with God after death depends on what our beliefs were during our Earthly life.
None of that actually logically follows from god's existence, though. It only follows if we assume a variety of beliefs about god.
It's simply a matter of a lot of people not being able to, or not being comfortable with accepting a belief "on faith alone." So when we're talking about beliefs that have no support other than faith, the folks who aren't able to or aren't comfortable accepting anything on faith grounds alone are going to balk at the idea. Curious people are going to ask questions about it, they're going to wonder how others can be comfortable with it, etc.
No, I don't thing anything can be derived from God's existence alone. What can be derived from one premise? "God exists", alone, without any defining statements, is just a statement of ambiguity.
It is difficult to hold a belief and not have that belief influence your actions in some way. Not everyone accepts that faith has some unique epistemic standing alongside reason. One might argue that faith is merely a label used to hide - and therefore sustain - cognitive dissonance.
Now the question "why do you care" is justified. And I think that in the case of many theists, there is no reason to care, and humility is the most healthy reaction. On the other hand, religions are a real and powerful phenomenon, and so are various "cult like" groups. Contrasting faith and reason and asking for reasonable arguments to support beliefs is an important step towards curtailing the power of these groups. After all, if basing your beliefs on reason is not important, what are we all doing here?
Oh, I see, sorry that was a prescription of the OP. I didn't read it properly, my bad.
In that we case we do need to delve into what it means to believe 'God exists'. We need a minimum set of characteristics or properties of God that the OP has granted. As it stands, the term 'God' is an empty variable. It's not clear what the OP has generously granted us theists. Is it just physical existence? That's not enough to capture any concept of God though. Physically, I think God is space, but that's because it fits some other traditionally Goddish qualities, like invisibility, omnipresence, solidity, partlessness, simplicity, immortality, self-movingness, etc.
There are no signs at all of interacting with God, a cake enrich my life and it wasn't made by God, you cannot confirm that you will interact with God after death and how we interact is also not confirmed because of the first unconfirmed.
And, because of all that, John Wisdom's gardener-analogy applies, because Correlation does not equal causation - a common fallacy and one that believers make every day.
If we accept God as real, there are no signs of God, so the most logical conclusion is that if God existed, he's the gardener in the analogy. The only reason many people believe those things is because they were taught so, not by observing it. And if observing something they couldn't explain, they would get answers from religion based on other observations in history that also didn't get a rational explanation.
The only rational conclusion, if we were to accept God as existing, would be that God doesn't interfere or involve with us at all, which of course then leads us back to the gardener-analogy.
Again, the idea is that this is "just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)"
People who believe these things DO believe that there are signs of interacting with God. It changes their lives in their view, changes their mental/emotional states, their relationships with others, etc.
Wasn't the point of this to evaluate what's the point if there was a God? And if there was a God, based on the common arguments that only points to a God that is so detached from us and our world, it becomes absurd to rely on that God or think we see causation where there is no correlation?
And as a side-note, I would argue that those people invite disaster, per my irrational belief argument in another thread. It breaks epistemic responsibility and is in my opinion unethical to apply to the world, since it only benefits the self, which, by almost all moral teaching equals immoral behavior. And even if God existed it would still be so, since it opens the door for murder in Gods name because of such irrational belief. Perhaps this thread may give me some thoughts on how to improve that argument since it actually is detached from any causality argument for God.
I wasn't addressing the "overall point" of the thread. Just the one small bit that I quoted from your post (in relation to beliefs that are common among theists).
In that case, I would regard the points on what people believe outside causality arguments to be unethical, per my other thread.
agree
Quoting Echarmion
I would argue, that we all face situations continually that require our full commitment of something important, and have incomplete information on the possible outcomes. Proceeding in these situations to one degree or another requires a faith based action. Are these some type of epistemic knowledge or not - I think more semantic than important.
Quoting Echarmion
I would counter as above that it is a natural part of the human belief system that is required when the application of fact or reason is insufficient, yet action is required.
Quoting Echarmion
agree - with a small change. Religion, is a man made institution with all that that entails. And there is no argument that there has been many awful things done in the name of God. Challenging religion is always healthy. Faith is not by definition either good or bad, it is just a belief that is not supported by fact or reason.
The eye only finds grey and brown in the woods cathedral. Only the mind can make a tree.
Cool. If god is no less real the Johnson’s stone, then we’ll at least get to see what he looks like, the reality of a stone being common to everybody.
Cooler. The end of organized differential religions. “Praise be to stone” has no more import than “Amen to stone” when all there is to work with is a reality no less so than stone.
well - faith based for sure - but because of that belief - i have been, with various degrees of limited effectiveness, been trying to live by this first principal for quite some time. Because this provides a meaning for my existence.
[i]God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.
God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.
From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.
For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.[/i]
Quoting tim wood
I will try, I have never made any claim whatsoever about the nature of God, in fact I would challenge any one - theist or atheist on what possible basis one could have to make such a claim. God is a very real thing to me, and very much an idea.
but yet again - these are matters of faith, of theology, not philosophy
I'm sure during times when I was wildness-deprived, I would have agreed. I get my fill pretty regularly these days. Are you speaking out of hunger by chance?
got it - good hunting then.
I grew up beside a forest and then lived in a big city, then wandered a lot.
God is sexless, timeless, benevolent and powerful:
1. Sexless: Not the product of bisexual reproduction so sexless.
2. Timeless: An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible. So God must be timeless.
3. Benevolent: Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible. If God ever meets a greater god, the outcome is as follows: Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished. Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished. Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded. The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.
4. Powerful: He created the universe so he must be.
5. Easily bored. Created universe to amuse himself.
6. Not a micro manager. Does not get involved in day to day running of universe.
7. Likes to do things on a grand scale (size of universe).
It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied.
Quoting Terrapin Station
As an author of fantasy novels who regularly writes about dragons and stuff, I certainly hope one can. I would hate to think I had merely hallucinated all the pages I have written.
BTW, dragons have qualities. Most of them have the quality of being fire-breathing. All of them have the quality of being imaginary.
Quoting Echarmion
"Donald Trump exists."
This statement provides information about Donald Trump, namely that he does not belong to the class of objects (dragons, Bilbo Baggins, Superman, the fountain of youth, etc etc etc) that do not exist.
Quoting tim wood
God exists. Does he have a sex? Does he have a mother/father? No. Deductions from the nature of God's existence.
In order to speak of anything you must first be able to say what that thing is; i.e., what its nature is, and if we are able to say 'what it is' then we cannot deny 'that it is'. We are well within our right to say that one thing partakes of an actual existence, while another partakes of only an imaginary existence, but we cannot deny that the imaginary thing does not partake of any mode of existence at all.
Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.
Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.
Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.
I don't think we can derive the necessary attributes of God from nothing more than an existence of a creator. However, it is not impossible so I'll try it here. A being that can create a universe must be omnipotent and also omniscient. Without omniscience the being wouldn't have the knowledge to create a universe. An omniscient being would understand morality completely and therefore would be omnibenevolent. So, there you have it. The existence of a creator implies an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing God.
But God is defined as all-good/knowing/powerful. If you grant that God exists then these are part of the package. Why ask a redundant question?
Ergo you must be talking about the cosmological argument - a creator being. Even if such a being should exist we wouldn't be warranted to deduce omnibenevolence. Only then your question makes sense.
:lol: Yes it's very difficult for me.
I'll give it another try...
Ok. Which of the 3 god attributes will you accept?
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. All good
I'm going to rely on the cosmological argument which you accept of course since this thread begins with acceptance of God's existence.
If a being (God) can create a universe then God must be all powerful.
As creating something is not only about ''what to do'' but also about ''how to do'' God must be all-knowing.
If God is all-knowing then it must be that God has perfect knowledge of morality. If so, God must be all good.
The omnipotent-omnibenevolent problem is a problem for ''us'' and not for God. Could a chimpanzee understand our motivations to conserve its species when a ranger darts it unconscious, puts it in a cage and takes it to another location?
But it's not that we just want to prove existence alone. We also want to prove that God has certain attributes too. Just the existence of an x is not enough to pronounce x as God. Also, it seems to me that you're being unfair because God's other attributes aren't derived from His existence alone, although I've tried to prove it with the cosmological argument, which you don't accept.
If it's impossible to change the universe after it is brought into being then God could be omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent and the problem of evil goes away.
So for example, if you believe in an eternalist universe, God changing things in the present would destroy an already extant future... so it maybe impossible for him to change anything... and the definition of omnipotent does not extend to achieving the impossible.
It seemed to me that the point of this thread was basically that people spend so much time/effort on simply trying to prove existence, but nothing else follows from that even if they were to succeed. No one seems to bother coming up with what they believe are novel, blockbuster arguments proving any of the other supposed attributes.
But then it was incorrect to make the OP about God. It should've been about a creator being. The OP quibbles between creator and God.
The fact is a creator doesn't necessarily have to be good but God has to be.
However, if someone's starting premise is that God exists then all God's attributes must exist too.
Isn't that only if one accepts particular definitions?
Yes, and the God in this discussion is the monotheistic God isn't it?
I don't think it's necessarily a monotheistic god, necessarily an omnipotent god, etc.
My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that.
Words are an abstraction of reality; to name 'natural forces involved in the vessel-selection-process', God, is firstly, an abstraction of the reality of these forces, and finally, inaccurate therefore.
It seems, people who have no answers, use God, for no other answer exists for our reference; not to mention it refers to a holy book, but given you're implying God is the dictionary definition, we'll skip the theatrics...
You can theorize all day different definitions for God, such as 'the multi-verse', 'light', 'the status quo', but these aren't the definition of God, that is 'deity' or 'higher power'.
'The status quo' exists, we can sense it; why would you reduce the status quo, named accurately, to God? Then you will use this knowledge immaturely, by going to church, rather than helping/hindering the status quo?
At most, the word is useful when defined as 'pointer to forces that we currently do not know about until further notice...'
Can your mind grow out of God, and actually define the higher forces in question? If not, please stop redefining God as you please, it's silly use of words technology.
Since I'm referring to the omni-God what lesser God could fit the bill here?
I'm asking because the impression I got was that @tim wood made a specific challenge about the omni-God of the monotheistic triad. Maybe I was wrong.
have to say I am perplexed by the question. Not that that is hard to do. Firstly it seems you are not defining what this "god" is that you are granting existence, but are arguing with when he tries to do so, i think arguing that he can't derive them from just existence. If i substitute "tim wood' for god in the o/p if i can't assign Tim Wood any characteristics not sure what is left to derive about you, based on your existence, other than you exist. By the simple granting of your existence I cant derive if Tim is a good man who loves well, or is a mass murderer or much or anything else of importance.
Could be lack of my intellect, but each time I try to answer with the way the O/P is worded - not sure what anyone could derive about anything by simply allowing its existence but not defining it or allowing other definitions about its characteristics.
I understand what you mean. You want to say that the just existence is not enough for any concept of God. God's other attributes are not inferrable from plain existence. God's other attributes may be regarded as accessory that need their own proofs. I agree.
But...
The difficulty in proving God's existence is in the part you deliberately subtract - omnibenevolence. What I'm saying is it is tough to prove an omnibenevolent, omnscient and omnipotent God exists. Theists aren't concerned only about existence. They are concerned that a well-defined God exists.
What you're doing here is like ''Ok. Unicorns exist. So what?'' The problem is that a unicorn is a horse with horns and it is these attributes that weigh in on its existence or nonexistence. We can't say unicorns exist without also accepting the horse and the horn.
In my opinion omnipotence is added to God, and be subtracted whenever, because God is a way to worship such a thing I do not like, you do so scientifically. I worship the status quo in light of heaven and hell (what's also added to God); key; worshipping the status quo; benefiting the status quo.
What goes around comes around; things like karma are implied by the status quo; the Earth is sustainable and we can benefit it by tapping into it's potential; dying with a success in mind. Who's to say it is the best success, but is it's success valuable? Murder, is it wrong? (people's lifes hold particular value); morality is to do with beneficence or malefience to the greater system; in a universe as chaotic as this lot's is forgiven; lot's of value is determined good, and you can be beneficent or maleficent. Simple logic is, if you aren't, you will either go to hell, degraded or even just not given entry into the better lives. Why should anyone be nice to you if they catch you?
more than happy to
So the logic of the thread is you disprove of people arguing for the existence of God that they define in one way or another.
You grant them that they can say their God exists, but they can't have their definition of Him
Than ask them to give this god with out definition attributes - solely from existence
Then declare some type of victory -
Still don't see the point, but don't need to - not that interested really. Seems rather meaningless to me.
and the evidence that you are not just on a different hay ride is ???
no issue with that.
A goal of philosophy is understanding the nature of the universe and that includes understanding if there is a God and the nature of God.
If God exists, there is plenty we can deduce about him:
- https://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/#SH6c
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620
I think that this perspective is flawed. In order that a human being could recognize God if He revealed Himself, one would have to already have an idea of what God is. Without that idea of what God is, it would be impossible to recognize God, no matter what He did to reveal Himself.
So prior to recognizing God, in His actual existence, we need to understand what God is. This is necessary in order that we could recognize God's actual existence when He reveals Himself to us. And, in order to understand what God is, someone must demonstrate, prove to you, what God is, because you cannot recognize Him based on what He has revealed,.as He cannot reveal Himself to you until you are capable of recognizing Him. So it is necessary that God be proven to you prior to God revealing Himself to you.
1. God is defined as creator of the universe
2. God exists is given
3. So God created the universe
4. So God must be powerful and intelligent to create the universe
5. And so on (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620)
I like the joke that the foremost existence is God; that could be one man.
Does that make it more complicated to derive anything from the existence of god? If anything can be attributed to god then we should be able to do the same for the rest of them.
Anyone want to describe the devil? :naughty:
For me, the essential question here is "what is existence?". I think that an objects (or a Gods for that matter) existence is its properties. In that case, your exercise would not change if you replaced God with, say, an apple. Whenever I imagine an apple, I see something red, fairly round, delicious, etc. Those qualities are what makes it an apple. In fact, I bet anyone of us would have major difficulties imagining an apple without imagining any of its properties, and the same is true for God. Existence without property is non-existence. Therefore, alone the fact that God exists means that he has properties, and the fact that he has properties (e.g. omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc.) lead to the conclusion that he is relevant to human beings, for instance:
Quoting bert1
Quoting purple-reindeer
These, for instance.
As this problem doesn't even arise in question to God (unless someone believes he is empirically detectable, but in that case he'd be either "real" or have at least one property and ergo he'd be relevant already), the "imagined" God is the "real" God.
If that is so, would you please be so kind as to explain to me what I didn't understand - maybe a bit more respectfully?
Quoting tim wood
So what you're saying is you're content with the properties I proposed for an apple - an imaginary apple opposed to a "real" apple that is - but when I argue that a real apple is the same as an imaginary apple when it comes to their overall properties
Quoting purple-reindeer
suddenly you don't approve of the properties?
So, applying this to God, if that is what you are getting at, if God is to exist then he is nothing other than his perceived qualities. Is that the line of thinking you are trying to elicit?
In this thread are you trying to address this then? I think that one conception of god has a real physical instantiation. But you won't let me talk about it because I am not allowed a definition of 'God', all I am allowed is his existence. I can't get anywhere with that. And that's not just a problem with God, that's a problem with anything. I can't determine whether horses exist or not if you won't allow me a concept of 'horse'. It's easy to show why. Take a prokkjellyvunt. Do they exist? Well, it's hard to say, until we know what I mean by prokkjellyvunt. Maybe its a matchstick construction that I built on my desk with glue, and I have named it so. Then to show it exists I could take some photos of it and send them to you.
Check the title of the thread.
1. The cosmoligical argument.
2. The teleological argument
3. The ontological argument
I'd say 1 and 2, if accepted, i.e. God exists, doesn't achieve much because his goodness yet remains unproven.
However, 3. the ontological proof does prove EVERYTHING about God (omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence), after all God is the most perfect being possible in that argument.
The object of a definition is a word. We define words, not things. The word 'God' definitely exists. And it is trivial to make a definition, (e.g. let 'God' mean that which created the universe), as you say we can define anything any way we like. The more difficult and interesting question is, does the word 'God' (once we have defined it) have a referent?
So, for a quick and dirty example:
Let 'God' be that which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Is there anything which exists that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient?
I think there is, I think space is all these things. Space is certainly omnipresent. If omnipotence is conceived not in terms of 'can do any random sentence with a verb in it' but in terms of 'all the power to act that there is', then space is omnipotent in the sense that it does everything. If omniscience is conceived not in terms of 'knows every proposition' but in terms of 'consciousness being everywhere throughout its being', and it is logically impossible for consciousness to be emergent (as I have argued ad nauseum elsewhere), then space is omniscient.
...therefore the referent of 'God' is space.
------------
In all this I argue from a definition, plus observations/things we already know about, to a conclusion about something's existence. To insist I start with existence and nothing else is strange, and I don't understand why you would do that.
Fool says there is no God. Even greater fool says, if there is God, so what.
You literally have to be a fool in order to be an atheist. That's an absolute. What fool says, then, in this case you, is irrelevant.
Of course, there's an absurdity of me trying to explain something to a fool, which I'll refrain from further on...