What are your positions on the arguments for God?
Hi all!
A while ago I made a post in which i made clear that i'm an extreme noob when it comes to philosophy.
While having bought a history of philosophy book, I still have a few questions that I don't see will be answered by myself anytime soon. So to the question; What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? The kalam, The five ways, fine tuning, moral argument, ...
The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. And I'm assuming that people here know a fair deal and are able to give me a clear idea of what's wrong.
I would like to suppose that the arguments all try to deal with a deistic or theistic god.
Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist?
Thank you!
A while ago I made a post in which i made clear that i'm an extreme noob when it comes to philosophy.
While having bought a history of philosophy book, I still have a few questions that I don't see will be answered by myself anytime soon. So to the question; What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? The kalam, The five ways, fine tuning, moral argument, ...
The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. And I'm assuming that people here know a fair deal and are able to give me a clear idea of what's wrong.
I would like to suppose that the arguments all try to deal with a deistic or theistic god.
Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist?
Thank you!
Comments (1258)
You can't diminish the existential considerations of our origins, as an artistic flourish. It's there in the philosophy, philosophy is an open minded exercise, not one of limitation of thought. One might also say that the notion that the singularity in the Big Bang event popped into existence from nowhere, is a poetical flourish in spite of how illogical that is.
Okay, so most of humanity has been wrong. We should be better than that. Up until 100 years ago "most of humanity" INCLUDING almost every scientist who ever lived...thought this galaxy we see as the Milky Way...was the entire of everything that existed.
Most of humanity was wrong.
Anyway...you and I agree that the term "supernatural" is bullshit. That moves our discussion forward a long way, just as a discussion between us on the nature of the cosmos will be furthered by acknowledging what science now knows about galaxies.
By the way, you previously said, "However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component."
You had the entire statement bolded, but I removed it to point out the part that caused me to start with that first argument. You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity.
Now we have established it as such. My next post will raise the next point I want to discuss.
Here are three that I use...all variations of the same definition. I offered all three at times in discussions here or in other fora.
1) An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”
2)
Predicates:
It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.
Secondly, even in this thing we humans call “the universe” is "all that there is" there may well exist entities here in this universe that are not discernible to human senses in any way.
Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.
Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.
The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement is not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)
3) What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”
I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Aargh. Should have re-read my last post one more time before sending it out. I left out some key information.
When I am discussing this "God topic" with someone, especially if that person has identified themselves as a theist or atheist, my starting point is to assume that the other person is referring to the supernatural god(s) - since that is the definition used by most of humanity. Now I'm well acquainted with the old saying about making assumptions (makes an ass out of u and me) - but until you find out otherwise this is a reasonable assumption to make. When most people use the word "God", they are referring to the supernatural god.
My follow up question is usually to ask that person to define the word "God" - and take it from there.
Now. If someone asks me for my personal definition, I will answer something like this:
Quoting EricH
Here is the full post from 5 days ago: EricH definition of the word "God"
Getting back to your definition, I have no problem with it. I wish you luck in getting the rest of humanity to accept/use this definition. May the force be with you.
That said, in previous posts I have made several recommendations to you to help you in your lonely quest
One recommendation is that when you post your 3 part multiple choice question about guessing? You must put your definition of the word "God" up in front of the multiple choice question. Otherwise, anyone reading it is going to make the reasonable assumption that you are referring to the supernatural being. I have watched you engage in numerous back & forth discussions in which you and other folks on the forum were talking past each other because you had not clarified your definition.
If nothing else, it will save you many hours of typing if you include your definition in front of your multiple choice question. :grin:
My other recommendation to you has been for you to use a different word other than "God".
In summary, it seems like we're in agreement. We're both agnostic with respect to your definition of the word "God". We're both ignostic to the supernatural "God".
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/437971
I'm a little confused with your reasoning. You are saying you need logic to deconstruct metaphors, analyze written texts, and so forth in order to arrive at your conclusions, yet you're denying it requires conscious existence in order to do so. Can you explain for us?
Yep, makes a good point to ponder. He/she is basically saying you don't even understand your own conscious existence, so how can you, through logic, deny another's conscious existence (Jesus)?
Is consciousness itself logically possible?
Thank you for the "help." I do prefer to do things the way I do them, though.
I am not ignostic to anything...and I really do not like descriptors. Most conversations on this issue take up more time with defining the descriptors than with the issues themselves.
Instead of using descriptors...tell me what you mean.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
We're looping around yet again in this conversation.
You have repeatedly referred to yourself as an agnostic. But you are an agnostic only with respect to your unique definition of the the word "God" - since you have also asserted that the concept of a supernatural god is illogical. This is ignosticism - or some variety thereof.
I cannot make myself any clearer. I'll give you the last word. Oh OK - at least in this particular line of discussion :grin:
Quoting Frank Apisa
So what makes your guess true that positions for or against "gods" are "nothing but blind guesses"?
Show us, sir, that you "have the ethical wherewithal to" demonstrate that a "guess ..." is, in fact, as you claim "A GUESS", and that you're just not "calling bullshit" but also flinging "BULLSHIT" too.
Good. I only assert that Theism Is Not True and, therefore by implication, Theistic Deities Are Fictions. If this is "bullshit", then a "Very Stable Genius" like you, Frank, will have nooooo problem following either of my links and quickly pointing out the faults in my reasoning. :sweat:
Frank, in accordance with the spirit of the OP (What are your positions on the arguments for God) the following will provide for sufficient discourse:
**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:
**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list
Logic/epistemology:
1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief
Phenomenology/Metaphysics:
1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience
Metaphysics:
1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience
Cosmology:
1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism
First of all, thank you, 180. I appreciate you reaching out. Not sure why they closed the thread. It was a legitimate topic, and I have questioned the motivation for the closing in the "Banning" thread. I'm sure we are going to get the standard "low quality" reply, which pretty much translate into, "I didn't like it."
If you want to think of my comments on that subject to be opinions...fine with me. But...I have challenged people who hold both sides to present UNAMBIGUOUS evidence in either direction...and everything I've ever received as a response barely passes the guffaw test.
If you think that "there are no gods" is something more than a guess...present your unambiguous evidence.
If you think that "there is at least one god" is something more than a guess...present your unambiguous evidence.
To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…
If by "theism" you mean people who assert, "There is a GOD" or "It is more likely there is a GOD than that there are none"...we are shoulder to shoulder. I agree...it is BULLSHIT.
By the same token the people who assert, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are engaging in BULLSHIT just as deep and smelly.
Okay?
Thank you for continuing here, Amen.
I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.
Give that a shot.
Mere doxa - sophistry aka "bullshit" (H. Frankfurt) - of course, I/we knew that; I just wanted you to admit you're just gassing. Again. Most likely that's also why the mods shut down your thread: gassing is "low-to-no quality" (trollish) and just clutters-up the servers with birdcage confetti. :mask: :victory:
Quoting Frank Apisa
Below from 5 months ago; let's see, Frank, if you can grok it any better now:
Quoting 180 Proof
(more @ old post link)
You're welcome Frank.
Well, sorry for the redundancy (and this may/may not be what you want to hear) but the answer in Christianity: the historical account of Jesus Christ.
Short of that, I offer that foregoing list of philosophical concepts that I welcome you to critique. As such, I propose you pick one (we were talking earlier about the possible differences between reason and 'belief') as merely a suggestive starting point.
My broader argument will be that based upon nature and the human condition, Atheism relies much more on ignorance, lack of sophistication and intuition, (to name a few deficiencies) to justify their belief system.
The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus. It is a grouping of tales told by people, some of whom supposedly knew Jesus and some who did not. Paul, the writer of the most important parts of the "historical" account of Jesus...never met the man. (Whether Jesus was one person or several that ended up as one in an amalgam is still being debated by historians and theologians.)
Be that as it may...how does this account possibly show that at least one god exists? What if everything written is wrong...or interpreted way beyond recognition.
John Kennedy was killed in an area with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of eye witnesses...and we have dozens upon dozens of stories about what happened. There are PICTURES and MOVIES of what happened...and we cannot get agreement. But you are willing to take the account of some individuals who lived thousands of years ago...who had a bias and motive to slant things...as (you will excuse the expression) gospel?
C'mon, Amen.
Present your single most compelling piece of unambiguous evidence that at least one god exists. Then we can move on to what that god is like...and whether or not various descriptions of it work out.
Are you a Christian?
I don't understand why you would deny that it's a historical account. What title or concept would you categorize or give to it?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Sure, what if it's all wrong, and what what if it's all right. My study of history tells me that it's somewhere in the middle. Is that unreasonable?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Frank think about what you just said. During that period in history there was no such thing as cameras. Nor were there movies.
C'mon Frank, don't grasp for straws.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Jesus existed and was known to be part God (his metaphorical son) and have a human consciousness. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.
Frank's an Agnostic
The modal logic — possible, necessary — aren't about you, I, homo sapiens, the universe we know of, in particular.
Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic. And that's intuitive as well. Why on Earth would anyone think that consciousness figures in all possible worlds, must be? There's an element of self-elevation, of conceit in that.
What may or may not be necessary specifically for us, Earth, the observable galaxies, this (no hypotheticals, skip modal logic), is another matter. And, either way, the rubble in the driveway is evidently not conscious. In the case of a human life (like us), we can track things from start to end, what was involved, needed, etc.
These claims ...
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
... are hence overstated as shown.
I suppose we might ask the old existential problem, why something, why anything at all? Why Yahweh and not Shiva? Why Shiva and not panpsychism? Why ... and not The Force? ...? And, technically, the modal logic dispenses with most postulates of something necessary. Not consistency though.
Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them.
In other words, because we neither have a theory of everything nor an adequate theory of conscious existence, we can infer something else about human rationality and it's purpose and existence. This is one reason why Multiverse theories even exist in human consciousness. Because it's logically possible. It's paradoxical...but so is time and consciousness itself, among other things.
So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?
Quoting jorndoe
Nice! How does Atheism support nihilism? And, do you realize your question in and of itself relates to Metaphysics? The reason is important because meaning of life or quality of life type questions (you wondering why there is something and not nothing) and issues from your self-awareness do not have any Darwinian survival advantages. Why should the Atheist care to even wonder about such an idea or ask such a Metaphysical question? This too, seems paradoxical. Please share, if you can.
There's not even any reference thereto or mention thereof, instead you run seem to with a script that you could have posted as a response to more or less anything.
In fact, it follows logically that your (relatively) lengthier commentary has errors, I'll just say non-sequiturs (take it as an exercise to spot them).
With all due respect, is that your way of saying you cannot answer those questions concerning the nature of your own existence?
For example you're trying to use deductive logic which is basically arithmetic. We don't even understand the nature of arithmetic and its Platonic and timeless characteristics (nor do we know if it's a human invention or has an independent existence), so how how are you supposed to prove anything through that means and method?
Sounds to me like another metaphysical question with no answer. Which begs yet another question, how does the atheist square that circle? Isn't it paradoxical?
Maybe go back to my list that I made for Frank and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier for you. (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.)
Nope.
It's observing that you didn't address the argument in that comment; heck, you didn't really respond to it, just went off on your own. The argument pertains to some number of claims of yours.
[sub](I suppose it's understandable that you'd rather just reiterate your own narrative, but this is a discussion, and not just anything goes, especially bare assertions shown to not hold water.)[/sub]
Furthermore, this isn't about me (at all), it's about the propositions. Not about you or me, but about the statements. (Hit the bar if you want to get down and personal. :wink:) Hence, please address what it's about.
Honestly I'm confused, could you spell out your questions and concepts in plain English? I'd be more than happy to parse them.
Then maybe you can return the favor and answer mine, if you're even able to... LOL
If you know what you're commenting about, then you ought to be able to understand the argument in that comment.
This comment lists some of the claims it applies to.
If you're still confused, then maybe read up on it?
Oh okay got it
Here's my response:
Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless, abstract truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them.
In other words, because we neither have a theory of everything nor an adequate theory of conscious existence, we can infer something else about human rationality and it's purpose and existence. This is one reason why Multiverse theories even exist in human consciousness. Because it's logically possible. It's paradoxical...but so is time and consciousness itself, among other things.
So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?
You have not given a coherent definition of the word "God".
Quoting Punshhh
I am pointing out that all discussions of a supernatural god are poetic in nature and have no semantic content.
Again - I am not dismissing your faith. But faith is irrational and illogical.
Here. I'll use a poetic simile. Using logic to prove "God exists" is like using an octopus to fly to the moon.
OK. I'll concede that it's not great poetry. You got me there. . . .
All I need to do to achieve this is to remind you of the philosophy of idealism, in which it is considered that consciousness (mind) is primary and the physical world we find ourselves in is some kind of mental projection, is contingent on the mind and consciousness of the beings who experience it. I know this is a big ask and it's not my personal philosophy. But The cogito accepts this possibility.
I think, therefore there is something.
The something cannot to divorced from the being doing the thinking. The whole natural world described by science is in a sense a nursery rhythm, narrative, or poetical flourish in the way this mind experiences this something.
No.
I cannot understand how anyone can consider it to be an historical account. It does have some history in it, I concede that. It mentions ancient Egypt and ancient Rome...and we know those places existed. It mentions a Pharaoh and an Emperor as leaders of those places...and we know they were ruled by a Pharaoh and an Emperor. But Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures also mention those places...and no one with any intelligence would consider that to be an historical account.
My best guess about the Bible is that it is pseudo-history (a mythology, if you will) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The New Testament followed in that tradition.
For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.
Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally.
I prefer to think of myself as agnostic...rather than as "an Agnostic." I know I sometimes use the Agnostic shortcut, but I will attempt to be more careful in the future.
Excellent point Punshhh. Likewise, I wasn't going to go there either with jorndoe because it's not my personal philosophy. Instead, I was going to save that Metaphysical argument (see concept-subjective v. objective truth- Metaphysics) if and when someone wanted to parse any one of those concepts from my so-called master list. George Berkeley of course championed that theory arguing only mental activity exists.
Similarly, as a footnote 'I think therefore I am' (as you alluded) is the old Metaphysical problem of dualism where the paradox of Being and becoming rears its head. And that's a good discussion point as well.
Thanks!
Tim!
Not sure your previous ad hominem comments to me deserve a sincere response, especially since you prefer dropping F-bombs and seemingly have an axe to grind, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one last time, otherwise you'll be relegated to my ignore list. (Actually, I'm not sure why you're even participating in this thread... .)
So, to answer your concern consider the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition". Call that proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call this proposition B. "A is false."
But if A is false, so is B because B is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.
Though not a huge fan of the ontological argument (because it's based on a priori logic---as I've argued with Jorndoe---and the resulting contradictions for Atheism/ their exclusive trust in using logic) the point is, if there exists necessary propositions, then the notion of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd. (And, exclusively using modal a priori logic, is logically possible--not necessarily false.)
Quoting tim wood
They transcend physics because they are mathematical truth's. Mathematical truth's are a priori, abstract, Platonic entities. And more importantly, the are considered Metaphysical. A Metaphysical language (kind of like Music). There are abstract mathematical objects whose existence seems independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets.
As an example, again, I can size a structural beam using abstract mathematical calculations that describe the beams existence ( when I design the structure). And I can also abstractly calculate the unseen laws of gravity using same. But existentially, we don't need either to build something or dodge some thing/falling objects. And finally, (although less analogous) I can write music that describes time signatures, chord progressions, rhythm, cadence, etc. that represents an abstract language known as the phenomena of music.
Frank! With all due respect, using that reasoning, you would have to prove that all historical accounts are either; true, false, half-true or half-false ad nauseum.
As a side note, what does it mean, in this context, to be illogical?
Here is you "conclusion" Amen.
Therefore there is a God.
With that as a C...please give me the P1 and P2 (that includes "the Bible says so) that gets you to that C.
When you realize that it cannot be done...
...you will have shown yourself why it is illogical.
I'll refer you to the Anselm's ontological argument. Goggle it and get back to me. Or, see my response to Tim.
If you have a reply to me...give it.
If you want to send me on a treasure hunt of some sort...I decline.
Sorry dude, you gotta do some homework. This isn't remedial philosophy class. If you're arguing EOG, you gotta come to the table with the basic's. Sorry, do the necessary training (or read my response to Tim).
Give me the P1 and P2 that arrive at a C of "Therefore there is a god."
HINT: You can no mare do that than the people who assert "There are no gods" can come up with a P1 and P2 that arrives at a C of "Therefore there are no gods."
It cannot be done.
If one of those other guys want to play your game...good for you.
I don't.
Okay, I'm bored, so you'll get the benefit of same :snicker: I'll babysit you if you want. Let's have some fun with deductive reasoning. Now, we don't seem to agree that Jesus existed in the Christian Bible (you haven't proved to me that the historical accounting of Jesus from the Bible is false), so I'm not sure what else to tell you on that. Your argument about historical figures was apples and oranges, thinking that JFK's existence was germane all because there was proof in movies and pictures. C'mon Frank, you can do better than that dude! Maybe argue about proof of primates or something from the same or similar time in history LOL.
Nevertheless, instead of Anselm's ontological argument (I don't buy into the Omni-x3 stuff) let's play around with the same kind of logic using logically necessary truth's and deductive reasoning, and oh BTW, that'll be 100 bucks. Here have at it:
I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:
•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God.
The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.
Another example is a version of the cosmological argument that simply posits causation itself.
Here’s the basic idea.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.
Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be super-natural, timeless (like the speed of light and existing outside of time) immaterial/metaphysical and abstract (because of what we know about the nature of mathematics viz physical theories) etc. etc..
And so Frank, if you want to invoke God into the cosmological argument you can, by virtue of his/its a priori description. But what would that prove? Isn't the concept of God more than a priori logic?
TTP:
Okay, I'm bored, so you'll get the benefit of same :snicker: I'll babysit you if you want. Let's have some fun with deductive reasoning. Now, we don't seem to agree that Jesus existed in the Christian Bible (you haven't proved to me that the historical accounting of Jesus from the Bible is false), so I'm not sure what else to tell you on that. Your argument about historical figures was apples and oranges, thinking that JFK's existence was germane all because there was proof in movies and pictures. C'mon Frank, you can do better than that dude! Maybe argue about proof of primates or something from the same or similar time in history LOL.
Nevertheless, instead of Anselm's ontological argument (I don't buy into the Omni-x3 stuff) let's play around with the same kind of logic using logically necessary truth's and deductive reasoning, and oh BTW, that'll be 100 bucks. Here have at it:
I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:
•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God.
The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.
Another example is a version of the cosmological argument that simply posits causation itself.
Here’s the basic idea.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.
Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be super-natural, timeless (like the speed of light and existing outside of time) immaterial/metaphysical and abstract (because of what we know about the nature of mathematics viz physical theories) etc. etc..
And so Frank, if you want to invoke God into the cosmological argument you can, by virtue of his/its a priori description. But what would that prove? Isn't the concept of God more than a priori logic?
That is without a doubt the WORST attempt at a syllogism EVER.
The premises...are a laugh.
At best...at very best...the P1 is false. (Actually, it is a gratuitous piece of nonsense.)
I did not suppose you were going to be absurd.
C'mon, get serious. If you just want to kid around...find something less serious to kick around.
No wonder these others have been laughing at you!
Really? I don't understand. Okay must be my bad again. Well, can you make them sound for me? I mean, you seem to be an expert. I'll anxiously await your correction, thanks!
1.If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
2. But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
3. Therefore, there is a God.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.
As an alternative (just trying to help) maybe go back to my list that I made for you and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier (for you). (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.)
Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.
Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."
You won't like the answer.
Peace!
Is that another way of saying you lost and are throwing in the towel? Gee Frank, what a sore loser. I thought you had more integrity. Oh well, Karma is a mysterious thing. I think I understand now why the moderators closed that other thread that you did...it was indeed just another rant of sorts LOL
Be well my friend!
If it makes you feel better about yourself to suppose that pathetic excuse for a syllogism was a mortal blow of some sort...go for it. I want everyone to feel good about themselves.
But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says. :wink:
I'm not following that Frank. Take a deep breath and think about what you just said. You critiqued the syllogism by ranting. In other words, you claimed foul, then suggested that you're not even knowledgeable enough to understand that which you disapproved. Frank, I'm starting to get worried brother...sorry, but how old are you again?
Yep, stranger things have happened...go figure.
I am 84, Amen.
You are not worried at all. You are attempting an insult...and doing it like a kid playing in a sandbox might do.
Your premises are false. (Look up false premises.) Actually, they are gratuitous...aiming for the result you want.
Your arguments are poor...which is the reason I often overlooked your attempts to agree with my posts. There are times I want to yell out..."Amen, be on someone else's side, not mine."
Anyway, you are correct in pointing out the errors in your opponents who are arguing from an atheistic position. Their arguments ARE filled with errors. But you fail to see the SAME ERRORS in what you argue.
That really was a piss poor attempt at a syllogism. But don't take my word for it...offer it to a logician at a university. They deserve a belly laugh, too.
It's okay Frank let it go ... let it go... breathe deep...
Who's it embarrassing for, you?
Are you an atheist?
Amateur stuff you are spewing there, Amen.
But...I guess you've gotta go with what you have.
You're right Frank. Remember you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!
Just joking my friend!!
Close the thread.
To be honest, I think it's because you're an atheist;. don't take it the wrong way, but an atheist that is much like what Einstein talked about. In other words, you're just trolling the thread (and offering no real import).
Perhaps; but consider, my being an atheist makes no difference to the shite you and Frank have swapped over the last few days. I consider it a brilliant exposition of how Christians such as your good self actually put into practice the injunction to turn the other cheek.
The accusation of trolling is just sad. Are you so incapable of self-reflection?
I would simply suggest putting your money where your mouth is and join the conversation. But perhaps you'll strawman the response... I hope I'm wrong.... We shall see.
Forgive me for the redundancy, since you guys seem to be on a witch hunt, I can't help but think the following quote actually describes you guys LOL
The fanatical atheists are like ...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.
Albert Einstein
No pun intended, I wonder if Einstein was correct?
You have never made a more clear and accurate statement. If the difference between a soft handed mod team and a hard handed mod team is jerkoffs like those 2 polluting the forum with garbage then I welcome the heavy hand. My self-righteous judgement would be complete except I share in the embarrassment, having interacted with both trolls.
Well, I did join the conversation for awhile. Indeed my previously rejected invitation for you to join a debate with me remains open. What remains obvious is that your reliance on the God of the gaps and your archaic notion of causation have been demonstrated repeatedly, and yet you are incapable of recognising your failure, or of responding in an interesting way.
Where could I read up on the older and new notions of causation?
I had this thread in mind at the time:
Causality, Determination and such stuff.
There are a few links therein that might be interesting.
I address this not only to you but to any sincere theists who may be reading this.
I have very friends who are deeply religious, and I can see how it provides them with both a source of comfort as well as a way to structure their lives. One of then posted this on Facebook:
Once a man was asked, “What did you gain by regularly praying to God?” The man replied, “Nothing…but let me tell you what I lost: Anger, ego, greed, depression, insecurity, and fear of death.” Sometimes, the answer to our prayers is not gaining but losing; which ultimately is the gain. ***
This is beautifully written. But it is not philosophy.
Throughout history, some of the smartest people who have ever lived - people much smarter than anyone here - have attempted to understand/explain/deal with this “God” notion - and yet none of them agree with each other. And I’m talking strictly about the theists - people who think the sentence “God exists” is not merely a poetic notion but that it actually means something. These efforts have failed and will always fail for the simple reason that by the plain language definition of the words "God" and "exists", the sentence “God exists” breaks the Law of noncontradiction.
You don't have to take my word for it. There are now over 1K comments in this thread and a substantial majority of those posts consist of different people trying to explain this to you in as many different ways as they can think of. I realize that this concept is extraordinarily difficult for you to comprehend. For some reason, it seems like you are insecure about your faith and you feel the need to buttress it up with some sort of pseudo philosophical "logic". But not only are these efforts are doomed to failure - they miss the point. Your faith should be sufficient.
To use another metaphor: Bringing poetry to a philosophical discussion is like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.
Now to the point - if you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, it is pointless for you to engage in these types of conversation. If you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, you can simply say “Yes, my religion is illogical, all religions are illogical. But just take a look at how my religion can help you be a better person and deal with life”
That is certainly something to consider.
[i]A Psalm of Praise.
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves: we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting: and his truth endureth to all generations.[/i]
Make a joyful noise! Dang. What a wonderful expression. This is beautiful literature. Those guys King James hired to translate the Bible certainly knew how to turn a phrase. But this is The Philosophy Forum you’re on - and these passages are irrelevant in a philosophical discussion.
I personally have no illusions that a metaphorical light bulb is going to light up over your heads upon reading this and that you're going to say "Oh, now I get it". My hope is that I have planted a seed that may grow in the fullness of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*** I don’t have the time to find the original source of this statement, but I’m sure if you google it you can find who wrote this.
Im not a theist. Im not an atheist either. I just dont know.
But I never even once agreed with the notion that having a belief in God, faith, is entirely devoid of reason and logic. That just flies against all experience, which I grant is very little compared to a lot of you. I have had with belief personally and with others I have met.
Who in their right mind can honestly hope or believe in something without reasoning about it.
Yes God and religion can act as emotional support. But I could never ever convince myself to have faith in something without good reason. I cannot. I am also not convinced that arguments cannot rationally lead someone to sincerely believe God exists. I dont care about convincing others at all. I care about my own worldview and whether or not it is informed.
I simply feel that the brushing away of a serious philosophical view in such a manner is not right. Even if its in an academic minority.
Ive said many times that I barely know what I'm talking about and that its probably missing lots of philosophical vigour. So when I say I disagree with something its on a prima facie basis. I dont see how God and exist cannot be used in a sentence together. I dont see how it is a contradiction. Especially when, as evidenced in the ongoing discussions, we dont even have a proper definition of God around here.
I've given a reasonable definition of a god...certainly one that could be used in discussions of this sort:
[b]An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”
The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement is not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.) I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.[/b]
As for the "Atheist, theist, agnostic" angle, my take is an agnostic one:
[i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i]
Eric!
Well, a very important distinction. Thank you for bringing that to light. 'Religion' (man's way of worshiping a God), is just another 'temporal' means to an end as it were. Meaning, the concept of a God indeed broaches not only the many domain's of philosophy, but cognitive science/psychology as well (in principle, as it should). For that reason alone (the so-called existential reason) it's appropriate and germane. It is, in itself, a broad and far reaching subject matter.
Accordingly, we have seen thus far (not only here but throughout history), emotions (as Einstein even alluded to and he's not even a psychologist) running high and people (atheists in this case) overreacting (apparently from his work in cosmology). The point there is, not only is there the existential angst component that is associated with our existence here, but you have to ask yourself, if I'm an atheist, why am I or should I even be angry about debating EOG?
If an atheist doesn't believe that God/Jesus existed, then why does it invoke so much anger and hatred? Honestly, I don't get that. (I hate to call someone out because that's not my intent to embarrassed someone, but just so you know I'm not talking theory-only, Tim Wood dropped the F-bomb several times... .) So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the cognitive science piece (sentience) that you allude to... .
Anyway, I certainly get all of the angst that comes along with the territory over the history of Religion itself; wars, killing, so on and so forth, but if we are to use objectivity exclusively in our approach to EOG, why should emotions play such an integral and important/obvious part... (note the paradox there from the foregoing concept of objectivity)?
What's more, since I'm equal opportunity, it's not just germane to atheism; it's agnosticism, theism, and other forms of religion ,etc.. etc.. In other words, it's human condition stuff. Existential stuff.
Thus, it seems, once again, we have a sort of inescapable paradox. And so, it also seems, that one relies on objectivity for their sense of logic, yet cannot escape their subjectivity. How does atheism square that circle?
That is a very important distinction you raise, which got me to thinking about that paradox, so thank you for that insight. Please poke holes in my argument and/or feel free to add thoughts of your own there. (I'll look at your other arguments shortly, but wanted to underscore that/your point.)
Another great point. Here's the decisive moment. Isn't life itself outside the axioms of logic? (Is it in many ways, illogical? Hint: Dialectic reasoning) Maybe another (philosophical) way to ask that; what transcends objectivity?
Ah, sorry Frank I didnt notice this. Well I agree with your qualms with supernatural for the same reasons but I still dont see why, if we use that definition. Eric would say that its contradictory to say he exists.
Thanks, D.
I use "gods" so the term "he exists" is not meaningful to my remarks.
I merely was responding to your comment about definitions of God (a god).
EricH is doing what I am doing...planting seeds that we hope one day will bear fruit.
I am certain that I do not know if gods exist (which is to say I do not know if the thing we humans call "the universe" was created or caused to be created by an entity or entities.)
I am certain that I do not know if no gods exist (which is to say I do not know if what we humans call "the universe" was either not created...or was created by means that does include "cause" by an entity or entities.
And I am certain that I do not have enough unambiguous evidence in either direction to make a meaningful guess on the matter.
All well and good, Frank, but your mantra in no way is incompatible with, or even invalidates, the claim "I am certain that I do know [ ... ]" the very same things you insist you don't know - which amounts to a distinction without a cognitive difference. And, despite whatever you call yourself (i.e. whatever self-"descriptors" you use), you've long since confessed that your modus vivendi is indistingishable from that of any garden-variety "atheist", so you're just another godless nonbeliever, in practice, like (most) forum members.
*Happy Apostasy Day*, Old Man. :halo:
I most assuredly am not an atheist...nor would I ever be one. I'd sooner adopt theist...a more ethical descriptor. But I am neither. My take on the question of whether there are any gods or not is:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
That seems to bother you. [/b]
I will discuss this for as long as you want, but from this point on I will only deal with you on this question in private messages. No reason for us to foul up this thread with our differences.
There are many different threads in your post - way too many to respond to. E.g. you spend a lot of time talking about hostility & anger of non-theists towards theists. I'm gonna skip this - but if you are really interested, suggest you open up a new topic - make sure you are clear in your OP that you are not interested in debating specific theistic issues but instead want to discuss the hostility and anger you are seeing. Of course it is likely that this conversation will end up embroiled in theological disputes anyway. :smile: But I think you will get some useful information out of it.
Quoting 3017amen
And here is the key point that I keep trying to communicate. The concept of a God used to be a philosophical hot topic - but as many people have tried to explain to you in different ways - in the 20th century philosophers finally figured out what previous philosophers had struggled with - namely that the whole concept is either self contradictory and/or incoherent - and thus has no place in any philosophical discussion.
Words have meanings/usages - and if you have a different meaning/usage for a particular word, then we need to understand those differences in order to communicate. Otherwise we are talking past each other and wasting precious time.
Let me try this approach. Frank Apisa & I have been having a long back & forth conversation about how to define/use the word "God". Frank has his own unique definition - when he uses "god" (and he uses lower case) he is referring to a natural phenomena - as opposed to supernatural.
Natural vs. supernatural
What do we mean when we say something is a natural phenomena? In it's simplest form we mean that this phenomena is part of the physical universe we live in and can observe. Matter & energy & space & time.
But of course we all recognize that our current knowledge and abilities are limited - likely we understand as much about the workings of the universe as ant ant crossing a football field understands what a false start is (that's an American Football term). So when I refer to something as natural I'm talking about a phenomena that we can at least hypothetically observe, measure, touch, smell, or whatever new sense us frail human beings manage to develop in the millennium to come.
So what about supernatural? In order to talk about the word supernatural I am going to have to switch to poetry - and to indicate this I will use italics. If something is supernatural, the implication is that that there is more to the universe than the physical universe we can either observe - there is a non-physical spiritual realm which is beyond anything that us mortals can ever measure or observe.
I'm sure there are people out on the forum who can explain the distinction much better than I.
So my question to you is very simple - when you use the word "God" - are you referring to a being/entity who is completely in the natural world - or does "God" have some supernatural aspect?
My hunch is that your "God" has some supernatural aspect to it - after all your "God" "existed" before the natural world existed - so your "God" is at least in some respect "outside nature"
So when you respond, please start off by being direct. Is your "God" "natural" or "supernatural". Of course you can add any additional explanations that you wish to make things clear. :smile:
Im having some trouble with the words here. I agreed with frank that everything that exists is part of existence. And I thought this would be the same as saying 'everything that exists is part of nature.'. But there seems to be a subtle difference to this?
I remember long ago reading a snippet of theology wherein they argue that things that are natural are bound by the laws of nature. If I jump off a platform I will fall and adhere gravity. Then you had things like preternatural which they would view things that were not bound entirely to natural laws but did have natures of their own. Angels, for example, would be able to perform "miracles" that defy natural laws. And then you had the supernatural. Which they would classify only God in because to them (Im not entirly sure if it was aquinas thats why Im sayint them) God was not bound by and natural law or even any nature.
This confuses me however because nowadays its not uncommon to see people say that God has a nature of his own. So that confuses me.
Anyway, what I meant to say is that I equated supernatural with existence. If something exists its part of existence. But if something exists, must it be part of nature? Or otherwise, must it be part of the physical universe?
But If I ignore all that and say that if I follow your definition of natural then yes God as classically understood is supernatural?
All if this is very confusing for someone who hasnt a clue :joke:
may know a thing or two about this.
Edit: Didnt know how to ping so I did a quote :sweat:
That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."
IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it.
Essentially, something we humans cannot detect...is merely a thing (or things) that we cannot detect...not something that is "other than natural" or supernatural.
Therefore anything "supernatural" essentially means something that exists that does not exist.
That is asking for a circle with corners...or triangles with four sides.
We've all (including me for the most part) have been making a nomenclature mistake by using the term.
If there are gods (i,e, if a god exists or if gods exist) which is something we do not know...then the question of whether the gods are supernatural makes no sense. It is something we must eliminate from the equation. Eliminating it from both sides of the conversation is a must.
The people positing the possible existence of gods must accept that if gods exist...THEY EXIST. They are not "supernatural." They are simply things that exist...but that humans cannot detect.
People positing that the existence of gods is impossible...are, in effect, positing that a circle cannot have corners.
To which the only answer should be..."I agree, but so what? I agree that if gods exist, they EXIST, which means they are as much a part of nature as apples or hills or thoughts."
Insofar as a theists suggests that their god exists, they are acknowledging that it is natural...NOT supernatural. The term supernatural is more a substitute for "but cannot be detected by humans."
(ASIDE: As was pointed out earlier, the god of the Bible CAN be detected by humans...or at least by some humans.)
How do you know this? Why do you define "supernatural" this way?
Maybe all that "super-natural" means is higher dimensional e.g. 3-d sphere in relation to a 2-d square? or gas vapor in relation to solid ice? or noise in relation to signal? where the first term has more (countable or even uncountable) degrees of freedom than the second term.
I agree that 'impossible objects' do not exist in so far as their predicates are self-contradictory or they contain inconsistent properties (Meinong); but - if by "nature" what's meant is an ordered dynamic self-generative (computable) system complex enough for self-aware agent-subsystems to emerge - that does not preclude 'nature beyond nature' such as, for instance, 'our nature nested within greater natures' like matroyshka dolls.
If there are "gods", Frank, to say they are "super-natural" might mean only that such entities exist at near-infinite distances (Epicurus) from us, from Earth, from the Milky Way, from this universe, which, maybe once upon an eon ago, they somehow left to traverse the multiverse (or "the bulk" that is between and encompasses countless "branes"). I don't see anything conceptually problematic with calling travelers between universes - cosmic nature-systems - "super-natural" in this sense (rather than in the woo-woo "occult" or "religious" senses) and therefore call them "gods" (certainly in relation to flatlanders like human beings).
Yup...the something out of (a special kind of) nothing...has always been a bugaboo with me too. If the idea of gods seems absurd to a person, how does the idea of something coming from nothing not also seem absurd?
I understand what you are saying here, 180...but I stand by what I wrote.
If a thing exists...it exists. If it is outside the realm of what humans can discern...it still exists; it is as much a part of nature as the smallest and largest of the matryoshka dolls are part of a Matroyshka Doll.
My point on this issue is that using the term "supernatural" as evidence that "gods" do not exist...is useless. I stipulate that supernatural things do not exist...if "supernatural" is absurdly defined as "anything that humans cannot perceive or sense."
But to suppose that EVERYTHING that actually exists CAN be perceived or sensed by humans is itself absurd.
I think the usage of supernatural here is doing us a disservice. It seems more as if you guys are actually talking about reality as a whole. i.e if something exists it is part of reality.
I feel like the definitions of natural and supernatural here are extremely weird. If you define natural as only physical things and then say that is all that can exist then you are basically just asserting physicalism.
Something existing outside of reality would be a contradiction. But something nonphysical existing outside our 'plane of existence' does not seem contradictory. Or a different matroyshka doll outside another. So God and exist would not seemingly violate the law of non-contradiction. 180 is right on point with what i'm trying to argue.
Much like God, I have noticed, nature/natural has many definitions with many applications.
If you think it helps to substitute "is a part of REALITY" for "exists"...fine with me, D.
My argument remains the same.
If a thing is a part of REALITY...it is a part of REALITY whether humans can perceive it or not. If a "god" is a part of REALITY...it is a part of REALITY whether humans can perceive or sense it. The ability of humans to perceive it is not more significant to that than the fact that an ant in the backyard cannot.
Nothing that "is a part of REALITY" is supernatural...just as nothing that exists is SUPERNATURAL.
Not sure of what that changes about my argument, but if I am missing something, give me indication of what it is and I'll respond.
Yes Frank. I was in part also replying to Eric who is trying to argue for a contradiction between God and exist. Sorry.
I agree with the main gist of what you are saying. If something exists then it must be part of reality. And since it seems that your definition of supernatural here is something outside of reality then it is nonsense. I simply take issue with the usage of natural and supernatural here. And it's less against (In a friendly way) you but more against Eric. You just seemed to take the same definitions and I find it to be a mistake. The way that Eric seems to be arguing is that anything that is physically observable is natural. And that only empirically verifiable concepts or things are real philosophy. And then he goes on to say that supernatural things, things that are not physical , not empirically testable and beyond our universe are not philosophy but poetry.
Now my guess is that he would argue that if God is supernatural then on the basis of the definitions he, or the talking about him, is bad philosophy and more like poetry. And somehow then concludes that 'God exists' breaks the law of non-contradiction. To me the key problem here is with natural which asserts physicalism and empiricism. And also apparently that another realm outside of the universe (Think of the dolls 180 brought up) must be supernatural i.e. Nonphysical.
Now to most of you guys who have made up their mind about a lot of these things the assertions might bother you less. But to me, someone who hasn't got any steadfast beliefs at all, it does. Other than that all of this is just a sort of game where I test my ability and learn a whole ton in the process. I'm sure that when Eric comes back he'll whoop my ass.
Good. I think
drawing a conceptual analogy from SUPER-natural to HIGHER dimensional and thereby that lower dimensions are nested within higher dimensions (e.g. russian dolls) which suggests a hierarchy of natures, or SUPER-nature, is ontologically consistent (i.e. a possible world)
just bounced off of Frank's incorrigibly hard head.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Assertion without argument again. Fine if you define "supernatural" this way, but definitions are neither true nor false; they're either useful or not for helping advance arguments which themselves are either true or not. What you're saying here, Frank, just seems wholly arbitrary and even tautological. Also, using "reality" and "existence" interchangeably confuses more than clarifies your point.
Thank you for teaching me new words and things. :joke:
Added: I had suggested the usage of reality here. It probably should have just been something that exists is part of existence as a whole. And something that is real is part of reality. That seemed to be what Frank is saying.
But back to the question asked in the title of the thread:
My position on the arguments for "God" (if a god exists) is the same as my position on the arguments for "there are no gods"...namely, both of those positions are merely guesses about the REALITY.
Gods may exist...or there may be no gods.
We do not know...and I can think of no way to make a meaningful guess in either direction.
I respect the guesses of others...and acknowledge that more than likely, one of them (There is at least one god/There are no gods) is correct.
For me...I'll stick with "I do not know everything that does or does not exist in the REALITY."
I already did one. Check my profile and you'll see... . The resulting consensus related to grudges against religion from childhood, etc.. Thus your comment about sentience... ,it's real stuff.
And so, you really haven't addressed your own comments about sentience and my comment about subjectivity.
Quoting EricH
Both. Plain and simple. The concept of God has to be, otherwise, it is pointless to posit same. In the case of Christianity Jesus/God concept, conscious existence, self-awareness, etc. supports something that seemingly transcends pure reason, objectivity, (objective truth's, mathematical truth's/cosmology...).
What transcends pure objectivity?
Quoting 3017amen
I thought I was clear in my question - obviously not. I'll try again.
Is there some supernatural aspect of your "God".
Quoting 3017amen
More poetry here.
Isn't it philosophy (if not, why not)?
You still have not answered the question. Quoting EricH
I already answered your question, thank you. (The concept of God is both natural and super-natural.) What don't you understand about that?
And I'll keep asking you: What transcends Objectivity (?). Is it poetry or philosophy (if it's not philosophy, why isn't it?)
So we're agreed that there is some supernatural aspect to your concept of "God". Next you need to define the word "exists". Then you need to explain how these two words form a coherent sentence.
Quoting 3017amen
[i]The ephemeral beauty of transcendence,
Will last beyond eternity.
It will rise from the grave of uncertainty
To grow to the heights of the one and only Objectivity.
Nay! In it's all knowing indefinable one and only Truth,
It will last forever![/i]
This might make pretty good lyrics to a hymn, no?
I'm not following that, are you saying that Objectivity is poetry?
Mmmm, let's see... want to try and break that down first, maybe? Let's start with the quick philosophical meaning, then we can explore some other ideas. Unless of course you're married to poetry/athesm/theism, etc.. :
In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
And so, what do you think transcends Objectivity?
I don't think this is a correct statement. But you can probably change my mind.
See my reply to frank above. It's also aimed at you.
I usually find definitions - talk about and use - of a/the deity wholly arbitrary and subjective, barely or not at all related to traditional religious (or philosophical) usage which alludes to what most believers actually have always confessed to believing in and that are either undefined or vague to the point of being useless to discuss.
For clarity's sake, designating which deities are at issue in 'for / against arguments' or (mere) avowals, I've compiled an inventory of the most common [b]deity-TYPES (i.e. conceptions of divinity):
(A) Creator only[/b] (e.g. deism; pan-en-deism)
(B) Intervener only (e.g. animism; paganism)
(C) both Creator and Intervener (e.g. poly/heno/mono-theism; pan-theism; pan-en-theism)
(D) neither Creator nor Intervener (e.g. pan-deism, a-cosmism)
Quoting 180 Proof
The crux of the matter in these "god discussions" is fourfold:
(i) Which are you undecided about - A, B, C, D or all (skip to (iv))?
(ii) Which do you disbelieve - A, B, C, D or all (skip to (iv))?
(iii) Which do you believe in - A, B, C, D or none (either same as (i)-all or (ii)-all)?
(iv) Assuming you agree that beliefs, disbeliefs or doubts require sufficient grounds without which we're just groundlessly, idly, gassing, on what grounds do you answer (i, ii & iii) above?
The stumbling block for most, on all sides, is question (iv) the answers to which, in the end, separate freethinkers from apologists (i.e. philosophers from sophists) & dialogic from trolling.
I have no problems with your definition of the term objectivity (allthough for some weird reason you insist on capitalizing it). There are countless discussions about objectivity on this forum. If you want to engage someone in a deeper conversation regarding objectivity (or Objectivity as you put in) I suggest you join in on one of those discussions - or open your own if none of them suit you.
But "transcends Objectivity"? Transcends is a religious/poetic concept. So you asked me a poetic question and I gave you a poetic answer.
But if you want to engage in a philosophical discussion about the sentence "God exists" you first must give a coherent explanation of what this sentence means.
Words have meanings/usages.
If you had taken anything away from my discussion I had with you we are left with concepts that pragmatically match to our interactions (epistemology) with the greater reality that remains within our immediate perceptual awareness (idealism). We cannot go outside of our experiences to see how they truly (in a philosophical sense being independent of skeptical challenges) came to be or reveal their true nature. . . HOWEVER. . . this means that we at the very least the most we can do is analyze these experiences (ones we "control" or do not "control") while giving them names to denote their properties or relations between each other. Through this we could come to the assessment that it could have been more or less probable that at some point in time previous there was an individual who we could have experienced in the same way we do a close family member but not in the same way you would imagine doing so purely within your "head". The challenge here is for you to make such a conclusion using only the relationships between your experiences (past or current) with their accompanying properties to make such an inductive assessment of Jesus existence.
I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity.
Is the concept of God an objective truth or a subjective truth, or some other kind truth? Or, is it even considered a truth?
Are you in favor of this particular vapid ex nihilo interpretation of the big bang theory? Given the only people I here espouse it are pop-science journals (to layman) and perhaps also creationists or rather poorly literate apologists.
Quoting 3017amen
Claims you would have to support through logical argumentation. Showing something is logically necessary is basically just the axioms of classical logic being elaborated on (the logically necessary statement is a tautology).
Quoting 3017amen
Nope, physical laws are just descriptions of the phenomenon that are our experiences with the relationships that present themselves. To think otherwise would be to make the greater world is not mysterious (unknown) which is as far from what you have advocated to be your position.
Quoting 3017amen
They already lie outside our (and especially your) thinking because of the issues that epistemologically pragmatic idealism brings to the philosophical forefront. We can only understand the relationships between certain experiences or the properties of one or in general (creating abstractions or greater connective webs of existence) but always remaining surface level. In this case the greater experiences or models created seem to indicate the sort of evolutionary development that you abhor. . . there is a strong relationship there.
The "ultimate question of existence" is as useless as asking "what is the TRUE nature of our experiences" in which both remain unanswered because of the heel that is philosophical skepticism.
You "deity types" categories split things up on what "God does or does not do". That does not clarify what the sentence "God exists" means.
Frank defines "god)s" as hypothetical real entities that are part of the natural order of things. that - at least can hypothetically - can be scientifically observed, measured, etc. That definition allows you to construct coherent sentences.
As we have seen from my discussions with 3017, the standard definition of "God" (and I capitalized here) involves some notion of a supernatural spiritual realm. Supernatural means it is NOT part of nature - it does not physically exist. That is the key differentiator. And - as both Frank and I have pointed out - the word "existence" means existence in the natural physical world.
Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?
• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real)
That's not every use of the words, but those are common in philosophy.
I appreciate why people become religious. It gives people a sense of belonging - to both a community as well as to something bigger than themselves. It provides people with a source of comfort. It provides like minded people with a support network of other like minded people. It gives people structure and "meaning" to their lives (whatever that means).
I will not argue with this - I see it first hand in my friends & relatives - people that I love dearly. I am not trying to talk you out of your faith. Faith is mysterious and unfathomable. Of course so are many other things in life - love, art, etc.
I realize that what I'm about to say next will sound disparaging - maybe there's a way to say this in a less personally critical manner but that is beyond my skills - so I apologize in advance for making disparaging comments.
For some reason, your religion & faith are not enough for you - your are not content with living your life according to the tenets of your beliefs. You feel the need to give some sort of logical reasoning, some additional support structures, to buttress up your faith. Notice that these are all poetic notions here.
I took Philosophy 101 & 102 in college, so I am familiar with the broad outlines of the history of philosophical thought. Do I recall the details of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. No. And I don't need to, because Ignosticism has resolved all these issues - albeit it not in a way that you approve of.
I'll use a poetic metaphor here- Ignosticism unties the historical Gordian Knot of all discussions about "God"
All religious talk is outside any possible rules of logic that can be constructed - religious talk is a form of poetry. You can use metaphor, simile, etc - but once you invoke the supernatural you have positioned yourself outside of any logical reasoning.
I realize that asking you to give a clear definition of "God exists" is asking the impossible of you. In our conversations I have been trying - as gently as I can - to nudge you in the right direction, but you keep veering off topic into notions of "objectivity" and "truth". These are important philosophical topics but they are unrelated to "God exists".
You have erected internal mental walls that block you from being able to comprehend that "God exists" is an incoherent concept.
For the record I will repeat my response to 180 Proof above. Quoting EricH
Now if you want to take Frank's definition of "god(s)" - the word "god(s)"is a placeholder for some hypothetical totally natural phenomena - then you are inside the boundaries of a philosophical discussion - you can have fun hypothesizing the "nature" of this hypothetical natural phenomena.
But once you invoke the supernatural? You are outside the metaphorical boundaries of logical discussion.
By saying "God exists"? You are saying there is something (the supernatural component/property of "God") that does not physically exist and yet it physically exists. And once you assert that? You are breaking the Law of Noncontradiction.
The penalty for breaking The Law of Noncontradiction is an indefinite stay in the metaphorical Philosophy Jail :smirk:
But not all is lost. You may have the key to get out. Can you can think of some new way of making coherent sense of "Nonexistent-God exists"? Is there some new way to express this thought in such a way that it can be analyzed for correctness/truth? Alternatively, perhaps you can figure out how the words "true" & "false" can be used when discussing "God's Supernatural Realm"?
Note that I bold faced "new way" - I did this to stress yet again that all existing attempts have failed. You need to come up with something new.
If you could do any of those things you would become world famous. Go for it!
As I point out in the second half of that post, "the crux of the matter" comes down to the grounds, or reasons, given to warrant any position taken on any "deity type"; whether or not a "deity type" is demonstrated to "exist" could be one of grounds, or reasons. Whatever "[s]god[/s] exists means" is determined by how the phrased is used to talk about (a) "[s]god[/s]", and in the abstract - without a specific discursive context or function - is literally meaningless (i.e. an ad hoc definition). My point is that when one says "I believe in a deist deity in so far as a deist 'deity exists' because XYZ", that's the point at which the phrase is (possibly) clarified. So "[s]god[/s] exists" BECAUSE XYZ - my fourth question
Quoting 180 Proof
makes explicit that, at minimum, giving grounds, or reasons, is needed to make ontological commitments (re: "exists") meaningful.
Quoting jorndoe
:up:
Quoting EricH
Uh oh ...
I'd bet they didn't teach paraconsistent logic in "Phi 101-102".
And your grounds, or reasons, for this assertion? Nothing mentioned in your post history (the last few pages of this discussion) warrants such a categorical statement - unless I've missed it.
I dont think the conclusion that it breaks the law of non contradiction follows at all. Me and 180 have been hinting at this for a while now.
Enlighten me? Either there is a singularity, or some other fudge (poetry). You still have the same problem.
Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one?
See here, here, here, here, here in a parallel thread (you can likely find others).
With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ? not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.
Why am I being ignored here lol
Ironically enough, I find atheist's more angry. I'm happy, thanks!
Quoting EricH
Is the concept of God, Subjectivity or Objectivity, or something else? If logic, as you say, cannot explain God, what transcends logic?
In summary, you haven't explained your conscious existence and how you came to be... , now, you are saying that logic cannot answer the deepest questions of existence.
Quoting EricH
Your own consciousness (conscious and subconscious working together) breaks the law of non-contradiction. Jesus had a consciousness. I see no difference there.
Quoting EricH
I'm not sure I would be world famous, but those who've had a religious experience might. Accordingly, you may want to study William James, AH Maslow and other's from cognitive science (ineffable experiences) etc... .
I was not ignoring you. To answer your comment - you and 180 & 3017 are asserting both P and ¬P.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm gonna start by going meta-conversation for a few minutes.
- - - - - - - - - - -
[Meta-conversation]
Even tho we are all using (or attempting to use) the English language to communicate here - in fact your world view and mine are so far apart that we can be using the same words yet we can be meaning entirely different things.
I am attempting to bridge the difference. This is an extraordinarily difficult task. To illustrate just how difficult this is, I'll give you an example.
From your perspective, the positions of @Frank Apisa & myself are likely so similar that for all intents and purposes they are identical - or at least they are kissing cousins. Yet, if you look back through this discussion you'll see that Frank Apisa & I had a very long side discussion about what Frank meant when he was using the word "god(s)". It took us a long time to get on the same page (more or less) and even now we disagree on some nuances.
So if two people who are philosophically close to one another can have difficulty communicating, I can only imagine how hard it must be for you to understand what I am saying - since it would require you to restructure your thinking.
The fact that after I have been repeating the same thing over & over - and yet you ask me what I am talking about? That illustrates as well as anything just how difficult this task is that I have assigned myself.
Unlike many others on this forum, I do not think you are a stupid person. It is clear that you are reasonably well read and articulate.
[/Meta-conversation]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So with all that, I will attempt to take a different approach for a while. Let's talk about these words "true/truth" & "false/falsehood".
When I use the words "truth" or "true" I am using them in the same sense as used in a court of law. If you are a witness in a court of law and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that the words coming out of your mouth will - as accurastely as you are capable of - describe facts/events in the real/physical world that we live in.
A sentence is true if and only if it describes a fact/event. A sentence is false if it describes an fact/event that could have happened but did not. This is basically the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
In order for a sentence to have truth value it must describe a potential fact.
The cat is on the mat. This sentence is either true or false depending on where the cat happens to be physically located at the time the statement is made
But - and here's a key thought I'm trying to communicate - It is possible to construct sentences that - while grammatically correct - have no semantic meaning.
[i]Quadruplicity drinks procrastination.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
The moon was a ghostly galleon
The unambiguous zebra promoted antipathy.[/i]
Etc
We all immediately recognize that these sentences are composed of words which have clear common use definitions, yet we all immediately recognize that under the clear common use definitions of the words these are either poetic in nature and/or nonsense sentences.
So now the question is - are such sentences true or false? To my knowledge there are two schools of thought on this topic.
One school of thought basically says (and stealing a Star Trek reference here) "Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination. That sentence is false"
The other school of thought says that you cannot assign a truth value to such utterances.
I go with that second school of thinking. You cannot assign a truth value to nonsense (or poetic or religious) sentences.
- - - - - - - - - - -
And now we loop back to the same thing I have been repeating over and over.
Words have meanings/usages.
Under your usage/definition of the word "God" and under the standard usage/definition of the word "exists"? The sentence "God exists" is a nonsense (or poetic) sentence.
Can you come up with a formulation under which this sentence can take a truth value - so we can communicate? I think that is an impossible task.
But instead I will give you an easier task. Forget about all us blindly ignorant agnostics/atheists/ignostics/etc.
Perhaps you can come up with a different usage/definition of the words "true" & "false" and "exists" under which two people of different religions can hold a religious conversation and agree on what they are talking about. Just as in science there is the scientific method to further our knowledge - maybe there is a "religious method" under which people of different faiths could find a common language/method to further religious beliefs.
That would be an historic achievement. Go for it!
Well in my previous posts I had argued why I don't accept your usage of natural and supernatural and because of that I cannot agree with you that 1: Talk of "supernatural" things are poetical in nature rather than philosophical. 2: The premise that 'God exists' violates the law of non-contradiction.
Quoting EricH
180 is not a theist. They are, like me, arguing that your claim: supernatural things are beyond philosophy and more like poetry is asserted without any support.
Amen and Punshhh are the closest to theists you can get. I haven't got an opinion on the matter yet because I am incredibly poorly read and a big noob.
I can only speak for myself, Eric, but I do not know how “existence” came to be…or if it always has been.
This thing we humans call “the universe” may not be all that exits…in fact, it may not even be MOST of what exists.
The question, “Are there any gods involved in existence?” (which often is stated, “Do any gods exist?”…is not a “nonsense” question, as your comments indicate you deem it to be. (This is one of the areas where we diverge.)
The question, “What is ALL THIS about?” essentially is the ultimate question of philosophy. (Perhaps the only question…or the question at the base of all other questions.)
To suppose one theoretical possibility (at least one god exists or no gods exist) is not a possibility (is impossible) makes no sense.
If I were to accept your opinion that “God exists” is a nonsense poetic comment…I would have to accept that my take on the question, “I do not know if any gods exist” is also a nonsense poetic comment.
It isn’t…not by a long shot.
The problem here may not be one of words or meanings…but rather of the general reluctance of humans to acknowledge they do not know what they do not know.
Interesting conversation going on. I’m enjoying reading it.
Yep, Multiverse... .
Which would be supernatural and more akin to poetry if we were to accept what Eric says. :s
From an epistemic point of view, you would have to ask yourself why or how should one even posit such a possible world, and why are possible worlds so axiomatic in determining the truth values about whether something is logically possible (or not) and/or logically necessary? Those kinds of questions go back to Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge, and how it's possible :gasp:
And that leads to other metaphysical questions and concerns, like what are the laws of physics themselves...
Super natural: a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. (Or maybe start with the mystery of consciousness, that should be easy :snicker: .)
I'm familiar with the arguments against assertions of god did it.
But you haven't answered my question, is there anything in philosophy which justifies the opinion that there is no supernatural element in our origins?
Nice!
That raises more questions than it answers. Here are a few to ponder:
1. Are feelings subjective or objective?
2. Are the laws of nature independent or 'dependent' on something?
3. Is Subjective Idealism a metaphysical theory about some thing objective?
4. Is mathematics objective or subjective?
5. Is love subjective or objective?
6. Is the ontological argument objective or subjective?
7. Is the ineffable religious experience subjective or objective?
Bonus question: should we be thinking binary or dialectic?
Questions, questions, questions!
Question can easily be rephrased, is there anyone on here who considers themselves a Christian, believes exclusively in the Christian God?
Well then, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that you belong to the tradition, which is certainly a futile exchange you will not be having with me.
Remember, here in America, pragmatic principles that say relate to Ethics (how to live happily), as found in the OT/Wisdom Books, is Christian Philosophy.
Is this core complete or is there room for growth?
No, the usages of words, not words alone, have meaning or not. Read e.g. Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, both by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Meanwhile, Eric, I'd still like you to answer
Quoting 180 Proof
Another meta-babble stream of non sequiturs will indicate to me that you neither know what you're talking about nor understand my concerns.
I often say that if "being a Christian" means "a person who thinks the teachings attributed to Jesus are worth taking to heart"...
...then I am a Christian.
I know lots of "non-Christians" who feel that way...and who wish the people who call themselves "Christians" would feel that way about the teachings attributed to Jesus.
Just sayin'.
The ethical core. Anyhow, instead of doing this dialectically I will just get to the point. Once we establish that this core is not complete but can be developed, then the question arises as to whether or not God is necessary to its development? The point is that if one "sees an ethical core" in Christianity one has not seen it because of Christianity. One does not need to reference God in order to develop it. This makes the reference of God both useless and unnecessary.
???
I get the point, not my articulation, but man's ethics do come from man, he is not submitting or looking to God, (even when he deceives himself that he is, this is only his deception, and in truth he is still within the domain of man speaking to man). It was the greatest rhetorical device when one figured out that they could claim to speak for God, which essentially means human psychological culture produced dupes that were invulnerable to authoritarianism. Of course, sometimes even the speakers believed it. This truly is the functioning of a backward, primitive species.
I am baffled at how I have said repeatedly over and over multiple times that - with your definition of "god(s)" as being a natural phenomena - I have no problem with your view.
Under your definition of "god(s)" it is hypothetically possible to assert a truth value. It is when you get into the realm of the supernatural that things morph from philosophy into poetry.
There can be no doubt that early Wittgenstein - circa Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - would have agreed with my assessment that religious language does not make any logical sense. What can be said at all can be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.
Later W modified his views - difficult to summarize in a paragraph or two since he's all over the map - but the short version is that later W considers religious discourse to be a particular language game with it's own internal rules & logic.
Here is a good summary: Wittgenstein on God
If you are interested in W's views on religion, I suggest you open up a new line of discussion. There are many people on this forum who are very knowledgeable & articulate about both early & later W.
you do not have to be religious and living in a religious country and your life will be effected by it
we may try to keep politics and life out of religion sometimes we can sometimes we cant
No god is enough for any of us to provide fulfillment in our lives or to give purpose but the values that comes with the god and the religion makes peoples life better.
remember religions came unto this earth due to illiteracy and poverty and injustice and some way for ruler to emphasize their rule on the people but still does effect most of the people living in poverty on much of the world
may god does not exist but the notion bring people to calm and still is predominantly needed for much of the world society
Well this is a mismatch between the map (model) and the terrain (reality) in which were asking how far can this model be applied before it stops modeling reality correctly. In this case infinities pop up in the mathematics and we're unsure what this is actually supposed to mean nor whether the model even applies here anymore.
Quoting Punshhh
Define supernatural? Once you've defined it can you construct a mathematical and loosely ontologically significant scientific theory that matches reality for other aspects of it (makes predictions) and thusly also not only "explains" how the origin came to be but we can investigate whether it's or isn't the case (minimal falsificationism) with this "supernatural" component?
Quoting 3017amen
If by supernatural, as implied here, you mean beyond scientific methodology/investigation and thusly beyond our experiences (the true nature of our experiences for example) then yes there is perhaps such a thing (could be anything from god to strings from string theory). We are stuck to our pragmatic empirical methodologies however and thusly cannot answer said question as only questions about experiences themselves as well as their relations can then be taken seriously.
Quoting 3017amen
No philosophy can do what you ask lest Descartes come back from the grave and beat you over the head with ideas of universes that began five minutes ago or clever deceitful demons. Only questions about our experiences or potential experiences can be made sense of.
So can you argue through a pragmatic scientific investigation of your experiences that there was a potential possibility in the past of having held an experience of a human being called Jesus? Imagining talking to an acquaintance and "actually" talking to an acquaintance are two different experiences which we can distinguish. . . which one is Jesus (the purely imagined or the purely "real").
This is false. Spanking children and burning witches neither makes society or people's lives better. Thinking one has solved the problems of existence because they believe in God does not make human lives better, it makes them more confused and rigid, more full of existential terror. All of the Christians who are alive today would be considered heretics in the world of the past, and Christians have wisely departed from much historical dogmatism, which proves that their real ethic, though they are not aware of it, is humanistic. It is humanistic values coupled with advances in knowledge that makes people's lives better.
Are you making a mutually exclusive declaration?
Have you read the old testament wisdom books?
Indeed I have. Beware lest you discriminate against revelation, for this would imply an external standard, which serves to nullify the authority of the whole. It is always a good day when the theist realizes he is really playing by humanistic rules.
Yes and no. We know that the laws of the universe are full of paradox and uncertainty. Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent.
It doesn't mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless only that an understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought. And so if the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense (through empirical observation), something beyond the natural laws governing existence is the so-called logical consequence. Hence the concept of super-natural.
Quoting substantivalism
I suppose another thought there would be relative to Subjective Idealism. If the concept of consciousness viz Christianity, includes parcing the nature of both mind and God (God's suppose-ed son Jesus), then reading a historical accounting of a historical figure or person wouldn't be a starkly opposing process compared with apperception of anything from our conscious existence.
Exactly so we can only work with approximations full stop, done.
Quoting 3017amen
"Beyond the natural laws", you mean beyond the patterns we see. The patterns are all that matters given they are all we have access to uncover what reality does and how it does it. Though, others have defined natural in such a manner that dealing in the supernatural (using such a term) would be redundant or useless as a distinction.
Quoting 3017amen
Are you saying that a person talking to another person is equivalent to imagining they are talking to a person? What is that you are trying to say here. . . was Jesus a "real" person or not (not purely a fictional one but a potential "human" experience the same as talking to a friend of yours).
Explain why it's redundant or useless as a distinction (?). I look forward to your response.
Quoting substantivalism
Are you saying that all historical figures were fictional characters?
Natural is what exists and either is or gives rise to our experiences.
Quoting 3017amen
Many can be accompanied by evidence that makes it likely among our web of beliefs that potentially you could have had a personal discussion with said person that was distinct from an imagined encounter. . . in other words don't twist my words. If your friend claims he has a friend and he shows you pictures of him (perhaps with footage with them doing something together) it's not to far a stretch to say so this is a potential "real" experience I could have if I met him. If it came to and he was entirely within my friends mind (I didn't see him) we'd be in a much different situation even despite him perhaps claiming he's right in front of me.
Historical figures (assuming were talking about real ones here) = "potential" encounters not unlike other people we've experienced.
Which is full of paradox and uncertainty, and are provably incomplete and inconsistent (Godel). And so how does your natural experiences help you in your argument?
Let's go full circle and explain your consciousness, shall we? Are the laws of logic outside of a complete explanation of your own existence? The nswer to the question is unequivocally yes.
What argument do you have there, that supports the use of the natural laws of the universe? I anxiously await your response.
Quoting substantivalism
I agree. Think of it this way, if someone came to you and said I saw someone performing a miracle, would you believe them? Whose truth is that?
Not natural experiences but what gives rise to and are experiences (what they do or how they do it) are what is natural.
Quoting 3017amen
Well you keep using the phrase "natural laws" and I think you are implying nomologically necessary laws which dictate how these experiences must arise. Rather i'd use natural laws are they are used by philosophers from the other camp of such a discussion, they (natural laws) are regulative behaviors of nature (experiences in particular and their accompanying relations to each other). Why wouldn't we use models which can cover the regulative behavior of nature to guide our actions or ontologies?
Quoting 3017amen
Depends on his definition of a miracle, whether he was the sole experiencer, if others saw the same exact phenomenon occur as well as come to testify on his behalf without coercion, and most importantly what it's that he was claiming is miraculous to have occurred (details)? Not to mention this experience would have to be replicated and investigated to rule out other possible factors as well as whether it was entirely "psychological". In that if we replicate it with numerous bystanders would he be the sole one experiencing it and all others at a loss?
"Hey joe."
"Yes."
"It's a miracle, the sun rose again today."
I'm not following that... . How does that explain the inherent flaws from our natural laws of the universe and your conscious existence ? You're not addressing the questions; are you simply not able to, using your experiences?
Quoting substantivalism
In the end, that sounds like George Berkeley's metaphysical theory of Subjective Idealism. No real exceptions taken there... . :up:
I was talking about how some may define natural differently in such a manner that they wouldn't require the label supernatural. There I was clarifying that experiences alone aren't what's natural but what is natural is an umbrella term covering those experiences and what gives rise to them. It's just different ways of approaching the definition of the terms here.
For natural laws here or laws of nature i'd take a regulative stance and merely state that certain features of cognitive awareness/connection to insinuating experiences/having said experiences retain many numerous experiential correlations.
Quoting 3017amen
You can only use your own experiences; what else would there be?
Quoting 3017amen
Though George Berkeley's thesis is usually given as a metaphysical/ontological one and I cannot in good philosophical conscience conclude with his subjective idealism. I can only conclude to holding a form of epistemological idealism with pragmatic/scientific methodology to guide me from general experiences to other general/abstract conclusions made from them. Again, as i've said numerous times before, we CANNOT know the true nature of our experiences (this includes a sort of Berkley idealism in which experiences in of themselves are all that they are) as we are only aware of the affects that such experiences have on "us" and the abstract conclusions made thereafter.
...not exactly sure what all that means. I would say to you, don't be afraid to embrace the concept of super-natural. As I said, (in our context) it's just a consequence of temporal-ness and finitude that exists in the world of physics and logic/reason.
Quoting substantivalism
The concept of super-natural. In the alternative, one could always parse the notion of synthetic a priori knowledge :chin:
Quoting substantivalism
What would be an example of that sense of scientific pragmatism relating to (explaining) the nature of your conscious existence?
Quoting substantivalism
No exceptions taken.
In summary, looks like we still have paradox and uncertainty, inconsistency and incompleteness.
A lot of that is already contained in even basic understandings (not being insulting here) of scientific methodology. The idea of constructing better abstract models of reality and waiting for them to break. Acknowledging their success but aware that they merely describe a black box and that their time could be up at anytime.
Going back to the actual reply the first thing covered was an explication of semantics. We can or could define natural in such a way that it precludes such supernatural distinctions. The second was just me clarifying the other common philosophical position on natural laws. Not sure you got this or not.
Quoting 3017amen
Did you create your knowledge or gave rise to these foundations? If the answer is more or less univocally no or probably no then it had to come from that which isn't "you". From outside. . . from experience. . . from the reality's interactions with itself or what was to become "you".
Quoting 3017amen
No explanation in the sense of philosophical certainty on the correct ontology of our world. Only raw experience and the abstract but useful models we construct to predict/describe our experiences. In this case part of the evidence to start would be that I happen to not know I've given rise to myself so what is likely is that the nature of my existence comes from outside (not me). From here come mixtures of native realism as a model and scientific investigations of the way other potential "conscious" beings interact with reality just as you study your own.
Quoting 3017amen
Only uncertainty relating to our restrictions and philosophical skeptical challenges to that which is the thing-in-of-itself. I still await to see a full conclusion that it isn't our concepts or abstract models which confuse us (give rise to contradictions) and it's the nature (the thing that's inaccessible) is fundamentally contradictory.
And how would you define it then? What are 'abstract models' in themselves? Is that some form of Platonism? Or is it some incomplete mathematical axiom?
Quoting substantivalism
Is that like the mysterious/metaphysical sense of wonderment? In other words, does consciousness and self-awareness cause higher life forms of life to wonder about things? Or, as you say, does wonderment come from experience?
Quoting substantivalism
Okay. so something outside yourself caused your self to come into Being. Is that a form of super-natural causation, or something that just is. If it's something that just is, then we're back to where we started.
Quoting substantivalism
As do physicists: ToE.
Abstract models merely are further combinations of concepts that we possess now and continue to learn formulated in such a way that they are implied to be certain aspects of our experience. Giving the three letter word red to the experience of seeing such a color.
Quoting 3017amen
It isn't platonism and it was never meant to be deductive but inductively/abductively strong.
Quoting 3017amen
You experience wonderment but I do not have a feeling of creating it directly only one of passive interaction when the right set of experiences arise.
Quoting 3017amen
You'd have to define causation here (whether this concept even fully applies to our experiences) but putting that aside what I am is not clearly (at least to me) of my own doing. If it was then I'd know and the fact that I don't know means there is something beyond me that gives rise to such experiences. Doesn't mean it just is or that it always was only that it is now.
It's not back to where we started but a step forward towards better specificity.
Quoting 3017amen
Okay.
So abstract models are natural then, from experience? No exceptions taken, since in our context; Jesus, Platonism, etc. etc. can be abstract models about some other form of consciousness from which the ideas themselves also come from consciousness. Does that sound right?
Quoting substantivalism
No exceptions. Can you translate that into Revelation in Christianity, as well as the religious experience phenomenon that uses induction?
Quoting substantivalism
So you really don't know how, and why, wonder exists, correct?
Quoting substantivalism
Okay, so you don't know.
They have to be as at most I have come to be aware of these models or perhaps give rise to them, manipulate them, but in the end given I have not (within knowledge) given rise to myself this leads to that which gives rise to our experiences or what experiences are.
Quoting 3017amen
The deceitful demon, the brain in a vat and many other experientially but abstractly distinguishable models of reality from the problem of skepticism are also all possible models to hold onto (no vapid exceptions right). Of course, whatever model you hold onto you most be aware of where that model ends and the experience begins. If where it ends and touches our experiences doesn't match them then it would seem that we would have to abandon it. You would have to reason from our relationship to said experiences to these sort of abstract models of it just as if you wanted to hold onto the universe coming into existence five minutes ago. . . ask yourself why hold it when it's experientially indistinguishable from any other skeptical model without much prior reason to do so. Or if your model allows for us to manipulate reality in such a manner that we ourselves or among past experiences are unaware can be done then again. . . ask yourself why hold onto this model if it contradicts it or postulates the existence of experiences not yet had (nor presently capable of being shown possible).
If you are to fudge a model to allow for your Jesus then you most be truthful about the application of said model to other similar entities while respecting core meanings. Further, it's a wonder of mine of whether what you could say ontologically/metaphysically through your christian existentialism I or anyone else could just as easily translate (language wise or theory wise) into a form of physicalism/panpsychism/objective idealism/subjective idealism/process philosophy/etc. Is metaphysics so conventional?
Quoting 3017amen
If and when revelation in christianity can correctly intermix with the greater web of our naive realism as well as the regularities of our experiences (the conclusions there in) then perhaps you'll have something. . . until then.
Quoting 3017amen
Only that it does and correlates with certain experiences (there is no reason to postulate its independency from external factors or its dependency but there are strong correlations).
Quoting 3017amen
Don't know the true nature of these experiences beyond the experiential but the experiential and the regularities there in I with every other person are fairly familiar with.
That explanation doesn't seem to square with the laws of nature themselves, nor does it square with the existence of a conscious being known from history as Jesus. For instance, we've already agreed that the laws of nature are paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete. And we also know that the nature of consciousness is outside the parameters of formal logic, thus also paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete (unconsciousness, consciousness and subconsciousness all working together).
And so either Platonism, mathematics, or something that transcends the natural laws of existence must be considered. Otherwise, we are back to simple wonderment, and the physicists questions that help him discover things from asking: 'all events must have a cause' as a means to his end. Accordingly, you said that a similar sense of wonderment is in itself, from consciousness, and thus is mysteriously unknown. So why and how did we get here? Everything seems mysterious or unknown(?). And from what you are telling me, all we have are metaphysical abstracts and ideas (mathematics) which in turn are incomplete and paradoxical.
Quoting substantivalism
It's pretty much as conventional as our consciousness would allow. The model would consist of the historical account of Jesus, the mystery of Love and consciousness, and inductive reasoning (the religious experience) to say the least. Most of which includes metaphysics and phenomenology. And of course all of which exists/existed.
Quoting substantivalism
Okay, you don't know some features or attributes from your own conscious existence. Is self-awarenss something that just is? What about Love and other sentient/metaphysical attributes from consciousness, how do they confer any biological advantages?
Quoting substantivalism
There seems to be a lot that you don't know that is seemingly natural.
Hi Timmy! Please enlighten us!! Oh wait, you're just trolling again. LOL
I stand corrected, you're back for more punishment!!!!!
What laws of nature? You mean the regularities or patterns in our experience because if that is what we value to navigate our experiences then contradictions explicitly would put a wrench in doing anything if we didn't pay attention to what predictably occurs or is.
Quoting 3017amen
The model would be contradictory or incomplete but to say consciousness is paradoxical or doesn't abide by formal laws of logic would be childishly over the top nearly violating the explicit wall there is between our experiences and the nature of what gives rise to them.
Quoting 3017amen
There is nothing above the regularities in of and the experiences we have. . . period. To jump into platonism is too commit oneself to asking questions about the nature of our experiences which cannot be answered without skepticism and Descartes tearing it down to arbitrariness.
Quoting 3017amen
Depends on your definition of what you would mean by consciousness or what precise concepts could describe it to the best of our semantic abilities. . . putting that aside.
What have I been saying this whole time? That our experiences are the only data we can use and speculate about the experience of the unexperienced (skeptical scenarios) will result in arbitrariness. Only that which informs us of what may happen next or what happens in the case of this collection of experiences or questions about or within our abstract models themselves are all that seems to matter here.
Quoting 3017amen
It seems that way but we're (especially you) asking meta-questions about our system and we can only remain within this system to ask questions with the system. Were stuck in F,
First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)
Quoting 3017amen
Why you would add anything as such is up to you and your arbitrary/restricted preferences.
Quoting 3017amen
It's right now (however we've defined it to be) and if I didn't give rise to them ("features or attributes from your own conscious existence") then what isn't me did.
Quoting 3017amen
All that gives rise to our experiences or is those experiences I consider natural.
Time. Do your homework Timmy!! LOL
Quoting tim wood
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you may want to study him a bit more. I'd recommend the book The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies.
Quoting tim wood
Hiding behind ad hominem again? Are you going to drop the F-bomb too? This topic seems to be really emotional for you, LOL
I'd also preface that you do not seem to note the difference between that which is merely undecidable and that which is paradoxical with both being rather distinguished ideas.
Definition of God:
All knowledge exists; ominiscience
All power exists; omnipotence
Everywhere exists; omnipresence
God IS by definition omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Mathematics. You know, mathematical abstracts, Platonism, etc..
Quoting substantivalism
Great. we agree! Logic can't help us!!! Does that mean super-natural is an alternative?
Quoting substantivalism
Sounds like existential angst of some sort. No exceptions taken.
Quoting substantivalism
In other words, you don't know the nature of your own existence. I gotcha.
Quoting substantivalism
Is that another form of a subjective truth or objective truth?
Quoting substantivalism
Okay?
Quoting substantivalism
But if what is natural is an experience that is unknown, how do you know that experiences are real?
Ah, yes.
Quoting tim wood
Archetypical Dunning-Kruger specimen. Even gives "trolls" a bad name.
Oh, well let's also then add to Gödel, Heisenberg (uncertainty principle). LOL
Hey 180, come join the party! Or, are you another one of those angry atheists that Einstein talked about LOL. Gee, what a paradox, an atheist who doesn't believe in God sure seems upset about these things...or is it an irony, or contradiction?
Time is noun, no? LOL Gosh, trolling, trolling trolling...are you angry too?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=time+definition&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR3A
Hahahahahaha
There are many God's who are all actually creatures; but there is one who is the Most High who is above all known as the Creator called God the Father of All. That's the one everybody is trying to understand. From my understanding, this motherfucker is an evil piece of shit who uses his all intelligence to fuck with his creatures in infinite ways without his creatures being able to ever find out because they are simply creatures. He can take on all creation at the same time because no one is his equal in power.
Yes, descriptions of our reality and further arbitrary abstractions to model its behvaior.
Quoting 3017amen
I can't remember again what it's that you've defined super-natural as but you seem to have glossed over the distinction between our experiences, abstractions of those, and what gives rise to our experiences. In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. Further, para-consistent logic or any non-classical logic is not a complete abandonment of everything that is classical logic but an adjustment to it. . . true and false still exist within those.
Quoting 3017amen
Okay.
Quoting 3017amen
Ahem, are we on repeat now?
Quoting 3017amen
I state it and believe what i've stated so it's objective. . . what would make it subjective?
Quoting 3017amen
Reality exists and if I didn't explicitly result in its existence then clearly something which isn't what I am had to.
Quoting 3017amen
Experiences are what they are. . . recall the mirage of palm trees out in the distance with a pool of water. Whether or not our abstract models makes such an experience consistent with previous ones and the meanings of the words involved the experience of said mirage is as real as you'll get. What gives rise to experiences is truly unknown but the experiences themselves and the relationships they have to each other are not. It's just as real to experience an imaginary friend as your actual friend but while they are just as "real" it would be a rather large lapse in judgement to designate them as the same experiences simpliciter.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, Heisenberg uncertainty principle from a certain abstract model of quantum phenomenon among many others. . . instrumentalism anyone.
Quoting tim wood
My answer was Time. And time is a noun. I don't understand, I answered your question, how is that a non sequitur...or did I box you into the corner , again?
Or, maybe you're trolling, again. Oh well, maybe sequit this:
LOL You angry atheists are more fun than a barrel of monkeys!
Quoting substantivalism
But mathematics is an objective truth. I don't understand how they can be arbitrary? Please explain!!
Quoting substantivalism
Does that mean consciousness may be explained in one person's mind, but not in another person's mind?
Quoting substantivalism
Well, not sure what your argument is then, or do you have one?
Quoting substantivalism
Yourself perceiving it's objectiveness.
Quoting substantivalism
Ok, great!
It's arbitrary what axioms you accept and while the conclusions you draw given a previously system within which to do so is not if you choose to precisely abide by said systemic rules.
Quoting 3017amen
I was talking generally about the categories of our experiences, the nature of them, and the abstractions covering them in which perhaps a contradiction does reveal itself to one but not to all nor pervades an entire category. Though, it isn't too far a stretch to say that other conscious experiences could be so distinct to the point that even the logical structure of them was different (different axioms are accepted).
Quoting 3017amen
I've been more clarifying my positions rather than using it or diverging from it.
Quoting 3017amen
What?
Quoting 3017amen
Okay.
Gosh, are you assuming Time is not in nature? Jeez, you atheists not only like to drop F-bombs (are angry), you're really unsophisticated too LOL!
Quoting tim wood
But math itself is an objective truth, just like Platonism and abstract ideas. How does that square your circle?
Quoting substantivalism
But those logical structures seem illogical once axioms are applied to them.
Quoting substantivalism
Great God exists then. Or did I get that wrong?
Are you reincarnated?
True in the sense that it can be shown to come logically given a certain set of accepted axioms. True in that classical logic inexorable without issue or arbitrariness derives the same theorems or conclusions.
Quoting 3017amen
That depends on what axioms you are applying especially since many axioms of your own experience aren't exactly able to be swapped out as easily as can be done to go from classical to para-consistent logic. I cannot make myself think in a way that is not what i'm now.
Quoting 3017amen
Depends on how god is defined if this goes in line with yours then yes. Do not however (beyond being consistent with your definition of god) apply further aspects of your worldview without elaboration as to how they do apply to me lest a straw-man is created.
Quoting 3017amen
:rofl: , no i've just seen later examples of William Lane Craig in his arguments or snippets of debates along with external knowledge as to his character that haven't exactly made me appreciate him as much. Perhaps in years previous he was more appreciable.
Indeed, sounds like another mystery associated with time and change.
Quoting substantivalism
I would never consider such nonsense :blush:
Quoting substantivalism
Okay, Aristotle too?
Alternatively, here's another interesting one for you:
I agree for once, imagine that! Even angry atheists, every once in awhile, get lucky LOL
Just wondering, please don't take this the wrong way, but have you guys thought about an anger management course?
I mean, it does seem contradictory that an atheist would get so angry about something he/she thinks doesn't exist.
Please allow me to introduce you two nice people to each other.
@nyimislam - Apologies if I have misinterpreted you, but you seem to have some sort of theistic beliefs.
@3017amen - You certainly have theistic beliefs.
Assuming I'm correct in that nyimislam has some sort of theistic beliefs, how's about you folks talk amongst yourselves - have a side conversation just the 2 of you.. Here is the topic of conversation: "How can we coherently discuss God in a way that people of all faiths can agree on?"
Please get back to the rest of us when you have the answer.
Thanks EricH! I think we're going to be okay. After all, the title of this thread is "What are your positions on the arguments for God".
And just as an ancillary note, none of the angry atheists here have been able to successfully argue otherwise! In other words, you guys can't even explain how you got here; wassup widdat?
Questions, questions, questions!!!
Good stuff! I'll check it out!
I do, but I'll pass on sharing the information. You may want to study those videos a little bit, otherwise, you can study this one LOL
Be well Timmy!
I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.
— tim wood
It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!
— tim wood
Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
Ironically enough... , come join the discussion over on the something v nothing thread. Metaphysician Undercoverer and other's are parcing the notion of time, change, eternity, timelessness, et.al.
You sure can be thick headed. His point in repeating that same thing in in response to your repeated question is his way of of saying “sorry Timmy, your use of “fuck you” has ended my desire to converse with you, Timmy”.
Its obvious he has retired even the small amount of cordiality he has in his responses to you. Should be obvious anyway, but you relentlessly carry on as if you haven't poisoned The well with 3017amen. Why do you do that?
Howd I do @3017amen? That pretty much sum it up?
Love you brother :cool:
In my mind I find making such a distinction (between time and change) is rather dubious as I at least consider myself to be a relationist with respect to time.
Quoting 3017amen
What?
Quoting 3017amen
While intriguing the metaphysics surrounding spacetime physics is a rather elaborate but perhaps misaligned one with respect to special/general relativity. We basically don't assume there is this nebulous external clock from which to compare to our clocks but not have them affect our clocks (even newton who held onto such a perspective admitted you couldn't experimentally measure it). Special/general relativity brings to the forefront the idea of important relative changes in clocks that is strongly influenced by the local spacetime structure. I haven't, however, seen a theory which foregoes the speed of light connection or other facts that lead to such theories being derived and focuses only on the relative changes (simpliciter) of objects themselves with respect to one another. Don't know if this would make a rather readily accessible mathematical theory though or if it would give any further foundational discoveries.
A first order theory is a very specific language used to describe mathematical 'things'. This is done by specifying axioms and inference rules, and proofs are done in a very disciplined/algorithmic way. One can view it as simple symbol manipulation with the intention of it meaning something. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
Now a big result was that "a theory is consistent if and only if it has a model". A model is also a very specifically defined thing, but I am going to make myself guilty of popularizing a bit here. A model is basically a 'real' mathematical object. So your theory having a model basically means there is a 'real' mathematical object that all this mindless symbol manipulation describes. In other words the symbols/language have meaning.
Consistency means that your first order theory is contradiction free. You can not derive two contradictory statements from the axioms. Furthermore, if one can derive even one contradiction, then one can prove any statement in your theory.
One may have big philosophical discussions about reality of mathematical/abstract things, but what this result basically tells us that when dealing with first order theories, mathematicians view 'existence' equivalent to the language describing the 'thing' to be consistent.
Again, I am once again going to make myself guilty of generalizing, but I believe these ideas may carry over relatively intuitively to everyday life. If one speaks of 'real' objects, then one is not free to say what one wants to. Some statements are true and some statements are false. If anyone doubts us we just point to the object and verify it. So if one is talking about a real thing, then the language used to describe it is relatively 'consistent' or contradiction free. Now in mathematics (well the mathematics of first order theories at least) they also accept the converse: if we are consistent in describing this thing then it must exists. If we are not free to say what we want about this thing, then it exists.
Now this brings me to the question of existence of God. I am not a philosopher/logician or anything fancy like that. However, if one accepts what mathematicians do about existence, then one only needs to show that the dogmatic theory describing God is consistent.
Obviously this is an enormous undertaking, as human language is very dirty and complex and any human thought is absolutely riddled with contradictions. But if one day someone tries to 'clean up' language so as to remove all the contradictions built into it, and then proceeds to provide a consistent dogmatic theory about God, then do you guys think this will suffice as a proof for the existence of God, albeit only as an abstract concept similar to our concepts of numbers/mathematics today?
I think that is an excellent question. The philosophy of language, theories about language learning/acquisition and the nature thereof are quite broad and cover alot of ground. Perhaps you can steer us in the right direction on what about language poses the biggest challenges... ? In other words are you referring to language and cosmology (mathematical language/ToE) kinds of things?
I have issues with the equivocation you did up to this point, but if you were correct, here is your proof against god. People are in fact free to say whatever they want about god and there is no evidence, nothing "real", to compare it to as a test. God's very "not-realness", its non-falsifiability, is plenty of reason to reject the concept as irrational and not correlated to the observable world.
Would you reject the concepts of mathematics as irrational and not correlated to the real world? What I tried to do was explain that one may consider mathematical reality to be based solely on the fact that the language used to describe it is logically consistent. So my proposition is that if we can do the same for our language used to describe God, then this gives our concept of God as much 'reality' as mathematics.
This however does not yet prove the existence of a somewhat more 'platonic' God, but it does give us a sort of 'half' existence like mathematics/numbers/love etc.
Now I am not a philosopher by any means, and also not a linguist. I am training to become a mathematician. These are just thoughts i have along the way.
This is some simple examples of some first order sentences we dealt with:
You don't think evolution or medicine are evidence based and correlate to the real world? Are you a Trump voter?
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
No. It is specifically correlated to the "real" (observable) world. Mathematics is internally consistent in a way that transcends language. There have been efforts to rest language on the solid foundation of mathematics (Russell for example) but I have never heard of someone trying to rest the reliability of math on the "consistency" of language. Language is not consistent. It is largely correlative, but it is agreement reality and fluid. God doesn't have nearly the evidence to support his existence as mathematics does, or even the less secure language.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
You are equating mathematics and love as concepts with the same level of justification? Wow. Where to start?
Math is reliable because it is predictable, and that predictability has been reliably transferable to the "real" world for thousands of years.
Love is a specious label that we've attributed to various brain states and as a (problematic) descriptor for interpersonal relationships. For example, the Greeks had seven different words for it. It's not scientific, but people use it because they'd like to believe in some of its more desirable outcomes.
God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power in the hands of a few elites so they could maintain control of their tribes in the face of growing population numbers. Religion had a function historically, and allowed societies to increase their net security and stability to the point that the next step in human evolution, reason, could be developed. In the presence of reason, religion is not necessary and not even desirable.
Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence.
Just an observation, you seem to be conflating politics with something... ?
Quoting Pro Hominem
How is love problematic?
You don't understand consciousness, you can't follow the conversation closely, and you have never experienced love. Robot.
Keep spamming. Maybe "God" will turn you into a real boy.
My statement: 'the facts considered in these fields are considered to be true' was put there to say we do not need a consistent formal language to describe things that we describe to be true. Furthermore it was put there to highlight the incredible inconsistency built into language, as anyone on the forefront of these fields may testify that publications consist of a LOT of arguing and contradicting. It's messy.
Mathematics is ultimately just a language, and most of mathematics has nothing to do with the real world in any easily graspable way. Consider Category theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense) for example. Furthermore go research the philosophical problems connected with things like the continuum hypothesis/axiom of choice.
Quoting Pro Hominem
You are correct, there is a long history of mathematicians trying to make general language consistent. And this is somewhat analogous to what I proposed. I propose a formal language to describe theological theory in a consistent way, thus granting it the same level of 'reality' as mathematical objects like groups/rings/topological spaces or the real numbers. I am not resting the reliability of math on the consistency of English. I am resting the reliability of math on the consistency of a special 'language' called first order theories, in particular set theory (which in any case is yet to be proven consistent, we are taking the consistency of it as faith at this stage).
Love is an abstract concept. Like numbers was an abstract concept 1000 years ago. We saw a bunch of examples of each, enough for us to talk relatively unambiguously about both and thus we started calling it 'real'. Other examples of abstract concepts are money, economy, countries, etc. which all of us come to call real. If someone were to develop a specialized language, as was done for mathematics, to pin down our abstract concept of God, then God would share the same amount of reality as all of the abstract concepts I mentioned. However note that I believe religions commonly attribute a stronger type of reality than mere an abstract human thought.
Quoting Pro Hominem
You might believe that God was created by the 'elite' as a ploy to power, but I doubt this is the case. Do you believe superheroes were created by the American shadow government to control your minds and influence the opinions of the masses? Because this is the same type of argument you are making.
At the very least one needs to treat religion as an abstract concept developed to try pin down some observations on what actions make life better and what actions make life worse. Also, keep in mind most of western law has it's roots in the laws developed in Israel on dogmatic basis. Do not murder, do not steal, do not sleep with you neighbors wife etc. These are things we take for granted. The abolishment of slavery was done on Christian arguments. Equal rights is one of the core ideas in Christianity. Western society today is still very much a Christian one, in the sense that we subscribe to Christian morality. So I reiterate, at the very least one needs to treat religion as 'real' in the abstract way.
Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin:
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are completely insane! I love it!
More! :rofl:
That's sort of another irony, now that I think about it. Didn't historical accountings of Jesus, as it were, suggest accusation's of insanity or something else that resembles it... ?
In any case, I suppose nothing really new under the sun there, LOL.
What does this have to do with medicine or evolution? There are consistent uses of terminology in these fields. They are based on scientific processes that produce consistency and (relative) predictability. They don't have to be infallible, just generally reliable. "Truth" really has nothing to do with it.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
So if you're aware that efforts have already been made to do this, do you also know that they are all failures? Language is more complex than that. It is specifically flexible in a way that mathematics isn't. They do different things and trying to reconcile them is a fruitless waste of time. But I'm sure your smarter than all the people who have tried it before, so no worries. :roll:
The best part is that efforts to simply create ANY language with the consistency of mathematics have failed in the past, but you want to create one specifically to talk about THEOLOGY?!?!? Sure.
Maybe you can make a ruler that measures dreams while you're at it. Or determine how many chromosomes a unicorn has.
The level of "reality" that theology has is roughly equal to that of Star Wars. No amount of math will change that.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
Then you need to read more on the subject. It's not like I created this notion. If you're on the left, I suggest you start with Marx, on the right, then try Ayn Rand. Only their religious views, however. Neither of them understands economics for shit. :cool:
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
Shit, no. That's insane. They were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby because their comic book company was failing and they needed new material. They tried other stuff. People bought super heroes. So they kept selling. It's been a long road, but it's worked out pretty well.
The same argument? Hmmm. I agree that both religion and super heroes are fantastical fiction. I agree that they often purport to teach some moral principle, but are plagued by internal inconsistencies. I agree that they are both controlled by people trying to make a buck off of others' desire to imagine an alternate reality instead of the one they actually live in... Maybe you're right.
Comic books have the same validity as religion. There, I said it. You win.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
I think it developed that way because the elites realized that order was better than chaos - for them. But in terms of actually reaching useful conclusions on what makes life better for all mankind, religion has and continues to fall short.
In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin:
Agreed. People seem to forget Jesus' mission was much about Love and pacifism. And the OT/Wisdom Books about virtuous social behavior that were developed along side Greek philosophy and culture (both were influenced by each other), are still valued and used in a pragmatic way (table manners, advice concerning friendships, marriages, wisdom itself, and other basic ideas about happiness & the intellect).
Somewhat correct in the sense that god could be given conceptual grounding or "reality" in the same sense that an imaginary red chair can be. There merely needs to be a linking of certain concepts readily driven out by personal experience to imagine a particular chair is red even if you have never seen that particular chair in that color. In a sense our language is largely parasitic on our experiences and are like little independent legos that could be mismatched however we see fit but whether they give rise to predictive power is a discussion that most be had in the open, not within the confines of our mind. Does this term "god" service us a useful concept to navigate our perceptual waking experiences?
Quoting 3017amen
If we were assuming that there was a particular person who could be loosely given the title of Jesus then it would follow that we'd assume he was "conscious".
Quoting 3017amen
Not politics as god has been used in the past to signify (loosely and thusly it seems to be a rather homeless word) for morality, moral duty, the human drive, consciousness, existence, or why sometimes there is rain with lightening. It's no coincidence of our language/social life or of his perspective that we as a society make metaphors/stories that chastise us for acting as if we are our own gods.
God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power
— Pro Hominem
Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence.
Quoting substantivalism
That sounds like a psychological pathology that needs resolved.
Every concept does but not every concept is mean't to mean that which isn't just perceived by consciousness but is reflective of something that possesses consciousness.
Quoting 3017amen
Maybe or not. . . these are story elements that are important to how we talk about ourselves and they tell us something if not in a rather poetic or brass manner.
Quoting Pro Hominem
This is quite a substantial statement to make. So let's address this first. You must remember that science was first studied on religious motivations. Furthermore, the development of the modern scientific method by Descartes was claimed to be 'inspired by the divine'. The reasons for pursuing science remains based on a dogmatic argument even today. One does not do science for any utilitarian/economic purpose, but instead for the pursuit and understanding of reality. Most of our scientific facts do not have any application beyond satisfying the curiosity and developing the understanding of those who study it. The idea that this is a valid way for humans to spend their time has no argument beyond 'the pursuit of truth' which is an argument deeply rooted in religion. I would not call Science a shortcoming in making useful conclusions on what makes life better for mankind. Galilleo, Newton, Godel, von Neumann, Einstein, all believed in some sort of God and they all pursued science for the sake of understanding their reality, and by extension, its relation with their religious concepts better. In fact Godel's theorems in logic (arguably the greatest advances in logic since the subject's inception) was derived directly to refute the formalists trying to disconnect mathematics from the dogmatic argument that mathematical objects are 'real'.
Now beyond science, would you say the conclusion that slavery is bad is a shortcoming? Would you say that assumptions like 'murder is bad' and 'don't sleep with your neighbor's wife' do not make life better for mankind? Would you say the ideas of charity and peace do not make life better for humankind? All of these core assumptions, so fundamental to how our society functions today that we forgot we assumed them in the first place, are derived mostly from religion. Even much of our big laws today is derived verbatim from the Jewish laws of 4000 years ago.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I never claimed I was going to be the one to do it. I merely wanted to ponder the implications of someone actually doing it.
Examples of languages with the consistency of mathematics is:
python, java, group theory, regular expressions, Turing machines etc. We have many such examples. We do not need a language to describe every human thought, although Turing machines, by way of modern developments in AI seems to come close.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I already mentioned I am not a philosopher. You are going to have to drop you sarcasm and explain yourself concisely. I never claimed equivalence between the list of things I mentioned. I mentioned a bunch of examples of different concepts that all share a common attribute, which we call 'abstraction'. Saying apples and oranges are the same is false equivalence. Saying apples and oranges share an attribute of being edible is not false equivalence.
Now you still do not seem to grasp what I am saying. I apologize for not being articulate enough, my native language is not English.
I will try again, but with an example.
Let's make it simple and consider Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. This is something we understand rather well, so it shouldn't be too hard for logicians to come up with a first order theory describing it. If we then were to prove this theory consistent, then we would guarantee the existence of a set theoretical construct that mimics precisely what we described an electron to be. This is what mathematicians mean by 'existence' and this is what you mean when you say 'there exists infinitely many primes'. Now the existence of the set theoretic construction does not imply physical existence. It does not imply the existence of the electrons in your coffee cup. It merely implies the existence of our abstract concept of an electron.
This is why I mentioned 'half existence'. This is why I mentioned religions attribute a stronger type of existence to their respective gods. However, the 'half existence' of a god puts the concept on the same level of reality as our current concepts of mathematics. Thus if you want to reject that concept of a god, you are going to have to reject the notions of existence of mathematical objects, and instead treat it as a purely symbolic subject. And if you want to treat mathematics as a language that says something about reality, then since it would then also say something about a god, you cannot completely reject the abstract notion of a god.
Well... there's this: https://cathnews.com/archives/cn-perspectives-archive/17108-the-madonna-of-the-aborigines
... but I'll let others make of it what they will.
Meow!
G
EDIT: I just found this: https://www.inuitartfoundation.org/iaq-online/ceac-rejected-prints-birth-of-jesus
First, I would say you need to define how you are using "science" here. I think you are indicating the post-Renaissance rise of the experimental method in Europe. I would point out that the Egyptians and the Romans, just to name the prominent examples, were heavily engaged in observational science.
Regardless, I don't see how you can make the generalization that the motives of these people were purely religious. They may have identified culturally with a religion, in many cases it would have been deadly not to do so, but that doesn't require that religion was their motive.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
Descartes appears to have been quite devout, but there is a certain mysticism to his words that demonstrates spiritualism, as opposed to devotion to a religious institution. Again, you must remember that creative people like this were forced to pay lip service to organized religion at that time, or face a wide range of negative consequences up to and including painful execution. Also, Descartes is not the sole creator of the scientific method, and as someone living at the beginning of science's application, he was not the beneficiary of its accumulated results, which demonstrate that the fiction of god is no longer necessary to explain the universe, its processes, or its origins.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
There are a host of unsustainable ideas here. MOST science being done today is in pursuit of utilitarian and economic purposes. It is paid for and done by corporations who seek to profit from their discoveries, from mobile phones, to pharmaceuticals, to video games, to space travel, etc. etc. etc. Most of our scientific facts are part of a huge and complex weave of knowledge that allows us to cure disease, send selfies, go to the moon, bake a cake, etc. etc. etc. The facts support that it is a valid way for people in the modern world to spend their time because they are handsomely compensated for doing so.
Even if this were not true, to the extent science is done for simple curiosity about the universe surrounding us, that does not require those scientists to be religious practitioners. Also, your presumption that "pursuit of truth" is religious in nature shows your reliance on dogma here. You are starting with your conclusion and then trying to argue backwards. That is explicitly unscientific, by the way. In other words to equate "truth" or its "pursuit" with "religion", to say that these concepts cannot be severed from one another, is circular dogma. You may believe this, but it is demonstrably not true. There are all sorts of people interested in truth but not interested in religion. More of them every day, in fact, because pursuing the former leads you away from the latter.
Quoting TrespassingAcademia
The institution of African slavery was created and wholly endorsed by practitioners of Christianity, as were the Crusades and the enthusiastic raping of the American continents upon their discovery. This is where you lose all your supposed moral high ground. The greatest atrocities in human history almost without exception have a religious component to them. There is abundant evidence that religion is responsible for at least as much pain as happiness. You seem to be quite taken with the 10 commandments, here. They are not the first written laws. Murder was clearly wrong long before they were published - even the Old Testament affirms that. You cannot support your idea that charity, peace, or any other generally "good" concept are reliant on religion. They occur in its absence every day. Sometimes because of its absence, particularly with regard to peace. Incidentally, the US legal system is based on the British Common Law, which is decidedly practical in its focus, being disproportionately about property and the equitable treatment thereof. Religion is the realm of the clergy, not the barrister.
In a nutshell, most of your argument seems to rest on the idea that because religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid. Religion is a lingering artifact of our past, science is a tool to help us into the future. You may wish to resurrect the past, but I choose to focus on the future.
This is the God of the gap. God is only "necessary" to the extent one has no way to explain a phenomenon. As a worldview becomes increasingly scientific (reason-based), the formulation of god shifts (diminishes) until it is eventually not "necessary" at all. God is a crutch, created by man, to help him learn to walk on his own. If he doesn't discard the crutch once he can walk, he will never learn to run.
Look, I was trying to use low-hanging fruit to prove a cursory point. The thread wasn't about history so I didn't want to go very far down this road. Suffice to say that "science" is not dependent on Christianity per se.
In so far as "god" is a/the "mystery" ("of all mysteries" or some such), as an "answer" it's an appeal to ignorance - otherwise, merely begs the question. Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake). Science seeks the most generalizable, fundamental HOW 'this universe came-to-be ...', that is, an explanation (Deutsch et al) and not an intention or telos (pace Aristotle, Aquinas, et al).
Quoting tim wood
I don't think so. Natural science is monist contra "monotheism" which presupposes dualism of "spirit & matter" (à la Descartes' "res cogitans" et "res extensa"), "sacred & profane", "supernatural & natural", "one & many", etc ... regardless of all (ad hoc) attempts to reduce the latter "substance" to the former.
:up:
Go ahead. You like to make this term a moving target, so please pin it down for me as you interpret it.
Quoting tim wood
The how is the why. To paraphrase the wisest of all philosophers, master Yoda, "there is no why."
Quoting tim wood
Even if I could take credit for the creation of God, I would not - I wouldn't like to admit to such a crime. I agree that he is a straw man, though. Here again, you use the Christian God as a shield from whatever your own conception is. When one gets into conversations of this sort, yahweh/Jesus is the most common adversary to reason. If you have a straw man of your own design to substitute in his place, go ahead. All the same criticisms will hold true unless your deform your use of the word god to the point that you really just mean something else.
Agreed. Well put.
No. I'm not "opposed" to them because they are not even answers. Avowals, at most, not propositions.
So does astrology.
(1) The only answer to the fundamental / ultimate Why that doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitate an infinite regress) is There is no fundamental / ultimate Why.
(2) And as I wrote
Quoting 180 Proof
In other words, it's a pseudo-question - just Bronze Age woo-woo nonsense which philosophy perennially attempts to exorcize.
If you want me to say that Christianity was one of the voices in the historical "conversation" that led to a rational-scientific worldview, fine. Done. I don't think it's as influential as the the Greek contribution, given that Christianity spent 1000 years more or less sitting in its own waste before the "re-discovery" of Greek thought allowed progress to continue on. Still, its relative importance is probably just a matter of opinion and we won't get anywhere discussing it.
Quoting tim wood
Did monotheism contribute to the formulation of the universe as a rational place that could be studied and understood? Maybe. I don't think that case is as clear as you're making it here. I repeat that I think Greek principles of logic and reasoning are a bigger factor. Especially since Christianity doesn't seem to espouse that view very clearly at any point, given the acceptance of God's frequent failure to follow the rules (miracles and such). You also have the Christian penchant to burn anyone that suggested the world was most reliably understood using our faculty of reason and observation as opposed to taking church doctrine as incontrovertible. Christians were still actively afraid of the presence of witches among them until about 200 years ago, and a disturbingly high number of them believe in angels even today. So Christianity as the bedrock upon which all science is based? Not sold on that at all.
Your view is going to keep bringing you back to the God of the gap as your best case scenario. People hung onto God as long as they needed him, and the progress of science continually diminishes that need because a universe inhabited by an all-powerful magic ghost and a rational universe are mutually exclusive.
Quoting tim wood
So taken at face value, this statement makes me think that you actually believe in a vast, impersonal, materialistic universe governed by physical laws, but you've just decided to call that god for some reason. I'm surprised no one has told you this before, but that's not what the word is used to signify to basically anyone else. Why cloud the issue with a such a loaded and counterintuitive word?
Also, all of this.
Quoting 180 Proof