Can you prove that God exists? [Archive]

Meagain

05-30-2004, 02:44 PM

geckopelli,
The Good (in relation to God)- all motives, wills, acts, and commands of God are, as a matter of fact, the right things to do. It is not possible for God to do wrong things.

SvgGrdnBeauty et al,
I am not talking about faith. I have faith in the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the superbowl this year, I believe they will. However, this doesn't prove anything, except my wishful thinking.

rain_in_summer,
I don't have to prove he doesn't exist. If someone tells me that they have a twenty legged cat that flies through solid walls and can recite the Gettsyburg Address backwards in ancient greek I don't have to prove that it dosen't exist, they have to prove that it does.
Otherwise, it is proper, logical, and consitant for me to disbelieve as I have never seen, touched, or encountered a known case of these things occuring either seperately or together in one being.

MidnightMoonlight,
Telling me that you have found God is no proof nor does it exclude the neccesity of offering proof, even if you have. People are constantly relateing experiences, which they believe are genuine. So, someone could say that they have seen a ghost (a dead mother perhaps) that tells them to do this or that, and offer their experience as a logical reason for their act. Am I to believe their tale? Are all human experiences true and accurate? If one example of an inaccurate human experience has occured, can another?
Should I go looking for this dead person's ghost?
A waste of time.

Eugene

05-30-2004, 04:23 PM

I see god everyday.
I hear god, smell god, live in god every single day.
There is no difference between an artist and his expression, between a musician and his music, between lighting and it's flash.
All that is is just an expression, a movement a work of art.
And we are all god.
We are an expression, a symphony of god's will.

If god exists or not is bagatelle, for those who believe he does, he does to them and to those that do not he does not for them.

God's existence is the wrong question, what god IS is the right one.

And god is his expression, us.

eccofarmer

05-30-2004, 04:30 PM

NAMASTE

Prove god does not exist.Then we will have the answer.

ericf

05-30-2004, 05:32 PM

Prove god does not exist. Then we will have the answer.

The question is not equal when turned around... it is not even logically valid. I believe Meagain already dealt with this very well. But maybe you missed it or wanted something a little more concrete. Prove to everyone that Shiva does not exist and that Allah does exist. Can you even do one of those? :p

NightOwl1331

05-31-2004, 04:32 AM

Not everyone has the same definition of God. I think I can logically prove that an all good God does not exist though, but that depends on my definition of God. My definition of God is that it is the 1st cause. But even that isn't a good way to explain it. Think about it this way...if God created everything in existence, then God would be beyond those things. God would not be subject to the laws that It created. For example, God would have created good and bad, so God could not be either one of those. Of course, good and bad are relative anyways. It works the same for anything you can think of, God couldn't be male or female, big or small, etc. God could also not be subject to number, so God could not be 1 or 2 or 10, or even infinity because these are all human ideas. If God were subject to anything like that then there would have to have been something else that created those laws It'd be subject to. And then we're not talking about the same thing anymore. And that is why my definition of God is hard to explain because saying God is the "1st cause" implies that God is subject to time, but that is the only way I know of to put it in words. So, I do not think you can define God in any way. That is the way my mind works at least. Anyone get what I'm saying?

Strawberry_Fields_Fo

05-31-2004, 05:08 AM

God- A supreme being (one only), to whom we ordinary beings owe our existence, but whose own existence depends upon nothing else. Supreme in goodness, knowledge (omniscience), and power (omnipotent).

Can anyone offer proof that God, as described above, exists?
I am not asking for someone's belief in God, I am asking for an arguement or example that proves his/her existence.
If you were truly secure in your beliefs (whatever they may be) why on earth would you be asking us this question? It seems to me that you need to prove others wrong in order to boost your own security in your beliefs. Of course no one can prove that god exists, and consequently, no one (including you my dear friend) can prove that god doesn't exist.

And if you do eventually find scientific, logical proof that the god you describe doesn't exist...so what? Why is it so vitally important to you to prove to an impoverished woman with 8 kids and nothing to live for except a faith in a supreme being that her one lifeline of support now doesn't exist? Would you really get an ego-boost from being able to prove to a widower that there is no such thing as heaven and he in fact will never see his late wife again?

As I personally do not believe in the god you discribed, I cannot answer your cliche question. But I can only tell you this: For me, a strong benevolent force underlies everything in our universe. The proof that I have is LOVE. Throughout mankind's bloody history, love has always won. Love won against legalized slavery in the US. Love won against Hitler. Love won against the Berlin Wall. Yes, there are still "battles" that love is fighting, but humankind isn't through yet. Just the fact that love still exists after everything our race has been through is proof enough for me that we are indeed not alone, except in our personal illusions of abandondment.

-Kate

SvgGrdnBeauty

05-31-2004, 05:28 AM

As I personally do not believe in the god you discribed, I cannot answer your cliche question. But I can only tell you this: For me, a strong benevolent force underlies everything in our universe. The proof that I have is LOVE. Throughout mankind's bloody history, love has always won. Love won against legalized slavery in the US. Love won against Hitler. Love won against the Berlin Wall. Yes, there are still "battles" that love is fighting, but humankind isn't through yet. Just the fact that love still exists after everything our race has been through is proof enough for me that we are indeed not alone, except in our personal illusions of abandondment.

-Kate
That is truly beautiful. I really like the way you put that...

Sorry all...I easily get drunk on beautiful language/words...don't mind me..:)

Strawberry_Fields_Fo

05-31-2004, 05:30 AM

That is truly beautiful. I really like the way you put that...

Sorry all...I easily get drunk on beautiful language/words...don't mind me..:)
Aww..thanks :)

Meagain

05-31-2004, 04:29 PM

Strawberry_Fields_Forever,

"If you were truly secure in your beliefs (whatever they may be) why on earth would you be asking us this question? It seems to me that you need to prove others wrong in order to boost your own security in your beliefs. Of course no one can prove that god exists, and consequently, no one (including you my dear friend) can prove that god doesn't exist."

Well, excuse me, Strawberry. I thought this was the philosophy forum. I had assumed that this would be an appropiate place to discuss one of the greatest philosophical issues that has ever faced mankind. One of the issues that millions of people have died for and againest for thousands of years. I am sorry I am asking people to show me just cause for the beliefs they have, the same people who would not hesitate to tell me that I am condemed to an eternal hell if I don't follow their line of thought. The same people that fight againest each other because ther God is the only true god.
Excuse my overinflated ego for asking for proof of a being, that I am told, is the all seeing, all knowing, all caring, embodyment of the love you profess.

"And if you do eventually find scientific, logical proof that the god you describe doesn't exist...so what? Why is it so vitally important to you to prove to an impoverished woman with 8 kids and nothing to live for except a faith in a supreme being that her one lifeline of support now doesn't exist?"

Excuse me again. I am not addressing myself to an impoverished women with 8 kids, I am addressing myself to logical, thinking, individuals who choose to participate in a forum dedicated to philosophy. I posted this in the general section instead of the christian or other sections so that I would not be seen to be criticizing one particular religion.
No one told you to click on my post. If you don't like it, don't read it.

"As I personally do not believe in the god you discribed, I cannot answer your cliche question. "

cli·ché also cliche (klhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-shhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
n.

A trite or overused expression or idea: “Even while the phrase was degenerating to cliché in ordinary public use... scholars were giving it increasing attention” (Anthony Brandt).
A person or character whose behavior is predictable or superficial: “There is a young explorer... who turns out not to be quite the cliche expected” (John Crowley).
Excuse me again. I seem to be reading the wrong books on philosophy:

"Philosphy is the collection of fundamental intellectual questions."- Philosophical Problems and Arguments, 4th edition, Cornman, Lehrer, Pappas

Let's see, they devote 79 of 353 pages to this one cliche! In addition they offer 22 books and 4 journals for further reading on the subject. Shows what they know.
Maybe I should ask hard hitting questions like why people like the color red more than yellow. That's real philosphy!

I could go on, but I'll stop. My ego has already expanded enough for one day.

I apoligize, I'll stop asking "cliche" questions.

NightOwl1331,

I'd comment on your 1st cause thoughts, but I'd have to get into cliches like those Aquinas, Russell, and Copleston dudes used when they were running around insulting widowers who lost their pensions. (Notive how I dropped a few names to build my ego up somemore.)

P.S.
Peace and love all, groovy and far out, I apologize again if I asked any one to think. (cliche)

Sebbi

05-31-2004, 05:03 PM

MeAgain - Saying that God only acts in the correct manner is still abit too abstract for me. When talking about correctness and incorrectness it needs to be talked about in relation to something.

Are you talking about right action, in relation to happiness? Do you mean that every action is the one that will result in the greatest ammount of happiness (I consider this to include learning/getting closer to enlightenment)?

Blessings

Sebbi

Strawberry_Fields_Fo

05-31-2004, 06:21 PM

Meagain--I meant cliche in the sense that I have heard countless atheists pose the exact same question you did. Trying to prove or disprove the existance of god is one of the oldest debates on earth, and since niether side can prove anything, I don't see how it helps anything.

I don't understand your reasoning for trying to prove god doesn't exist. You say all these wars have been fought in the name of religion...so what? Man would have had just as many wars if religion didn't exist, he would have just found another excuse for it. In fact, more battles have been fought in the name of politics and/or land control than in the name of religion. Even if the whole world went athiest, there would still be war. What does it matter in whose name the war is fought for if the results are the same?

You also claim to be the victim of preachy christians who shove their beliefs down your throat. Well, believe it or not, there are things you can do to prevent this. First, you don't bring up the subject of religion with anyone you don't know very well, especially if you know their very religious. Then, in the event that they bring up the subject of religion, you simply tell them: "I don't discuss my religious beliefs with people that I don't know very well." If they persist, you can always try and change the subject or even walk away. In this way, you do not deny your own beliefs and you do not offend someone who is religious. The bottom line is that you cannot enter a debate against your will. There are always alternatives.

I have already heard all your arguments against god, just like I've already heard all the arguments from Christians in favor of god. It is nothing new to me. I do not believe in the god you discribed, nor do I feel threatened by the people who do. I am still curious as to how our world would be a better place if people didn't believe in god.

-Kate

Meagain

06-01-2004, 12:11 AM

Strawberry,

Sorry if I came down on you so hard but, I fail to understand why you are engaged in a post that you don't see any value in. In addition you made some rtemarks about my character that you have no way of supporting. But, enough.

"I don't understand your reasoning for trying to prove god doesn't exist."

You misunderstand. I am asking others to prove that he/she does. I am not trying to prove anything. Millions of people believe in a supreme being. I am asking if anyone can prove this supreme being's existence. I am not offering proof that he/she does not exist, I am looking for holes in their arguments of proof.

The point is to get people to think, to think myself, and to debate the subject. In order to have a debate you must have two sides to an issue. My side is, I have observed that many people believe in a supreme being. I see no reason to believe this. Can anyone show me proof?

"Even if the whole world went athiest, there would still be war. What does it matter in whose name the war is fought for if the results are the same?"

Well, let's see...wars fought for politics, I don't know, you must tell me what you mean by politics. War fought for land. I can at least see why the war is being fought. The land has some value. It exists. It is a source of food, a sea route, trading route, minerals abound, oil is present, etc. Wars are terrible, but some do have reasons. Wars over gods are pointless.

"You also claim to be the victim of preachy christians who shove their beliefs down your throat. Well, believe it or not, there are things you can do to prevent this. First, you don't bring up the subject of religion with anyone you don't know very well, especially if you know their very religious."

Really? I never discuss religion or philosophy with anyone, not even my wife.
Except in this forum, as that is what it is for.

"I have already heard all your arguments against god, just like I've already heard all the arguments from Christians in favor of god."

No you haven't. I can post pages of arguments for and againest all sorts of religious junk.
If you choose to dismiss me so casually, so be it.

"It is nothing new to me. I do not believe in the god you discribed, nor do I feel threatened by the people who do."

Me either on both accounts. Do I have to feel threatened to debate a subject?

"I am still curious as to how our world would be a better place if people didn't believe in god."

Do you really want me to get into this? Have you ever heard of the Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, the extermination of the pagans, Templars and Cathars, the dark ages, 21st century Moslem terrorism, the Israeli conflict...shall I go on?

BTW, I never said I was an atheist, I'm not.

Sebbi,

"Saying that God only acts in the correct manner is still abit too abstract for me. When talking about correctness and incorrectness it needs to be talked about in relation to something."

I believe I said something like, If God does something it is the right thing to do. There is no need to relate it to anything. God can do no wrong. Remember I am using a set definition as to what God is and what his actions would be in relation to right and wrong. I am not debateing what right or wrong means, or if there is such a thing as right or wrong. So good is what God does, God can do no wrong.
Happiness does not enter the equation.

Woog

06-01-2004, 08:18 AM

Let's say I can produce God. I bring him/her/heesh into your parlor
showing ID confirming that you have met the one and only GOD.
What would that do for you? If God has already created the universe
that surrounds you and you are pretty much in control of your life
at thisa point how would it even help. Perhaps it would be interesting.
And of course God could then confirm if YOU will continue to exsist
after you are dead here which is the real question isn't it? God can
be God forever but if we blink out of exsistence at some point, what
does it matter?
So, personally, I'd like directions to the afterlife. I'll visit with God when
I get there.

geckopelli

06-01-2004, 06:08 PM

the dauer

06-01-2004, 06:17 PM

The fact remains that we cannot touch God. We cannot define God in any way because that simply limits the infinite. If there is no beginning or end, no side, and thus no middle -- in the sense that there are no two finite points with which to define God and then define a third point in between -- and if this God does not, as you say, rely in any way on anything else, then how on earth do we find proof of said God?

We can say existence is proof of God, but in reality all we can ascertain is that either everything has always been, or that something in some way caused everything to be.

For something that is without form, what can we touch? Even 1 + 1 = 2 can be represented in form.

This is why this question becomes so difficult. Any definition of God that provides an adequate subject of debate is too defined.

So I'm not not saying there is a God or there isn't. But the search for concrete evidence of something that cannot be represented spatially is silly. The most complicated mathematical concept can still be represented with symbols based off of other concepts represented by symbols. Defining God limits God. The word He is just a concession to convenience. Dealing with God, say what God is not instead of what God is, although even that logic can get out of hand. Inevitably one must admit that there is no physical evidence of God.

Ben

tikoo

06-01-2004, 07:31 PM

i have known god
to be quite
small
and simple minded
with just
enough
power
to move the wind
around a bit

so when the wind
blows your mind
you can
make a new dream

of some feathers
and feathers between
yo toes
go
go on

Dizzy Man

06-06-2004, 11:57 PM

I don't think you can prove or disprove God for certain.

I believe in God for many reasons, perhaps the most scientific being the coincidence of the sun and the moon appearing exactly the same size from Earth. If God was going to show us a sign of his existence, putting it up in the sky where everyone can see it is probably the best place.

geckopelli

06-08-2004, 01:31 AM

No one has ever defined god clearly enough for a prove/disprove situation.

tikoo

06-08-2004, 08:33 PM

We don't know all of existence . For that matter , it's common enough
to deny something of what we do know , committing it to that black hole of the
sub-concious . My truth is the symbolic model of existence , and if i put anything down the hole , i might vaguely feel that part of existence yet my
truth isn't fully enabled .

Assume 'if God' , then all have experienced God .
or
'if no God' , then no one has experienced God .

Do you possess a complete , open , engaged conciousness ?
And have experienced no God ? Seen no feetprints in the sky?

Dizzy Man

06-08-2004, 09:59 PM

No one has ever defined god clearly enough for a prove/disprove situation.
I have a definition:

An almighty intelligent being that designed and created our universe. The highest authority of everything that is, with ultimate (if not infinite) power, knowledge and wisdom.

We humans obvioulsy cannot 'imagine' God since our minds are limited to the confines of our own universe (three dimensions, time etc.) and could not comprehend anything beyond it. Therefore, this kind of definition is all we could ever have. We cannot imagine God any better than a calculator could imagine us.

geckopelli

06-09-2004, 02:26 AM

I have a definition:

An almighty intelligent being..."
Your definition of god is a Super man. It explains nothing.

What is your definition of intelligence? A man, a horse or a dog is intelligent. Or are they? Might not behaviour be controled by factors so complex as to push the border of Chaos Theory for explanation and only appear to us as "intelligence" and "freewill" when in fact they are instictive products of genetics/evironment? They're are many indications that this may be so.

And what does "almighty" mean? Universal gravitation is "almighty", if you mean omnipotent and omnipresent. But that's about it.

Is there ONE consistency in ANY definition of god that can be tested?

Terrapin Flyer

06-09-2004, 02:42 AM

I dont look at god as being some being in the sky who controls everything and the devil as a being who lives in the ground in fire and what not. to me GOD is exactly what it says. Good Orderly Direction. i believe there are two types of energys. one being positive and full of light and love, the other as being negitive and full of hate and wrong. grab onto the right energies and spread those energies and im sure you will end up where ever it is you wanna be. lovin ya'll.

~shine on in love and light~
Sundance

Dizzy Man

06-09-2004, 10:14 PM

Your definition of god is a Super man. It explains nothing.God is obviously not a man. He is a being quite unlike us.

What is your definition of intelligence?Something capable of thought, and emotion.

A man, a horse or a dog is intelligent. Or are they? Might not behaviour be controled by factors so complex as to push the border of Chaos Theory for explanation and only appear to us as "intelligence" and "freewill" when in fact they are instictive products of genetics/evironment? They're are many indications that this may be so.
Didn't quite understand your question, and I know very little about chaos theory. Don't get me started on the free will argument again! We do not have the same kind of intelligence as God (as I said before, humans to God are like calculators to humans). It could be said that we have a lot less intelligence than God, but the point is that God has at least as much intelligence as us, and therefore, by human standards, he is intelligent (as opposed to a calculator, which is not).

And what does "almighty" mean? Universal gravitation is "almighty", if you mean omnipotent and omnipresent. But that's about itBy almighty I meant omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If the universe is a book, then God is the author. I don't think God is omnipresent, since that implies he exists at points in space inside our universe, which is a ludicrous notion. He created our universe — he is not a part of it.

Is there ONE consistency in ANY definition of god that can be tested?You can't test to see if the universe was externally created. That is impossible. Just like you cannot prove how an author set about writing a work of fiction just by reading the fiction itself.

geckopelli

06-10-2004, 05:03 AM

God is obviously not a man. He is a being quite unlike us.

[Obviously? What's obvious is that it doesn't exist- no proof.]

Something capable of thought, and emotion.

[A fish thinks about eating and feels pain. Is it intelligent?]

Didn't quite understand your question, and I know very little about chaos theory. Don't get me started on the free will argument again! We do not have the same kind of intelligence as God (as I said before, humans to God are like calculators to humans). It could be said that we have a lot less intelligence than God, but the point is that God has at least as much intelligence as us, and therefore, by human standards, he is intelligent (as opposed to a calculator, which is not).

[what is this based on? A drug trip? If you don't get chaos theory than perhaps you would be wise to bow to it's complications.]

By almighty I meant omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If the universe is a book, then God is the author. I don't think God is omnipresent, since that implies he exists at points in space inside our universe, which is a ludicrous notion. He created our universe — he is not a part of it.

[What if god wants to never have existed? Would we still exist?]

You can't test to see if the universe was externally created. That is impossible. Just like you cannot prove how an author set about writing a work of fiction just by reading the fiction itself.
["Impossible?" The cry of the uneducated! You disappoint me, Dizzyman.
I seem to be the only one trying. Note I'll not toleratre unqualified reputiations of the possibility of god.
We cannot say what god is- let's say what he isn't.
But that's another] thread!

POPthree13

06-10-2004, 05:06 PM

Just because something is a process that can be attributed to genetics and environement does not mean it is not intelligent. I would define intelligence very loosely as the ability to receive input from a variety of sources, categorize that input and act upon it. In that definition trees are intelligent. Do they think like you or me? No... but they do adapt the their environments in amazing ways. Lifefroms all over this planet adapt and change in 'miraculous' ways all the time and many do not have the complex nervous systems capable of intelligence. Where then does this 'knowledge' come from?

I like to think of wasps as an interesting example. Wasps live only one season. They build complex, celled paper nests where they deposit eggs and enough food to bring the offspring thorugh the pupal stage. When the new wasps emerge in the spring they have had no training whatsoever, yet they instinctively know what food to pursue. When they find a catepillar they know exactly how to sting it between each pair of legs to disable it and carry it away. Where does this 'instinct' come from?

Evolution itself also seems to follow pretty directed paths that from a distance look intelligent. You mention chaos theory Gecko, but life's evolution from the simplest of forms to the complex systems of modern creatures is anything but chaotic. Of all the arguments for some 'Other' force I personally think this one is the most convincing.

Instead of an intelligent force directing all of the affairs of life I tend to think that life is based on an intelligent system. That there is an intelligent framework of creation upon which all systems exist. That life itself is built upon this system - not a creation of it or separate thing at all. Life is just the physical manifestation of an energy force which permeates the universe entirely. Life is like the tiny mushroom on the surface of a fungal matrix which may extend for more than a mile out of sight.

angel_delight47

06-10-2004, 09:43 PM

I can give u scripture after scripture that God does exist,,,,, but u have to be willing to search the word of god as well.

Dizzy Man

06-10-2004, 10:15 PM

Gecko,
Did I say 'impossible'? Okay, I should just clear that up. Of course, it is not theoretically impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. If an abundance of evidence turned up that strongly suggested that God created the universe, then scientists could declare God real and take an early night.

My 'impossible' comment was more about disproving God. Let's look at a word:

Evob.

Now, did I just type that by stroking random keys, or did I specifically set out to write the word 'Evob' because it means something to me?

By studying the word Evob for a long time, it may be possible to tell if I wrote it deliberately. But if there is no evidence to suggest any meaning behind it, that doesn't mean you can ever prove that the word was random. How could you ever know for sure?

It is impossible for anyone in our universe to disprove God. I stand by that assertion, and I am an intelligent person!

Pop,
Some interesting points.

As for you "where does instinct come from?" question, instict is just qualities passed down from generation to generation. If America became infested with killed rabbits that looked cute but killed you, the only people who survived would be the people who had strange phobias of rabbits, and their genes would be passed onto their children, so their children would instinctively fear rabbits. Instinct and evolution are pretty much the same thing, only instinct refers to psychological traits passed down.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-11-2004, 07:39 AM

ericf:

"The question [Prove God does not exist (which is not even a question, as ericf seems to believe)] is not equal when turned around... it is not even logically valid."

Yes, the burden of proof can be shifted to the unbeliever. If you are unconviced by all proofs of God's existence, then you cannot conclude that God does not exist. You must make a convincing argument proving that He does not exist or else no conclusion, one way or the other, can be drawn. That is good logic. You should also not use terms of which you do not know the meaning, such as "logically valid." In a philosophical context, you used the term completely inappropriately.

gecko:

"'Impossible?' The cry of the uneducated!"

Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty. It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible. I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience). I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence. This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being. We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought. Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God. I find this to be the most convincing argument for God's existence.

However, doubtless, many, I dare say the majority (not that I care much for them), will be unconvcinced by this argument. I then offer two additional proofs: 1) the cosmological argument, which I have been fond of since I began to study philosophy, and 2) the teleological argument, which has persistently grown on me in recent years. If the combined weight of these three arguments fail to convince an unbeliever, then I say that this person cannot be convinced; but I also must urge this person, in the name of philosophical consistency, to deny his own existence as well.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 05:26 PM

Dizzyman,

No doubt you are correct. However, I shan't give-up trying.

And I go eithier way. Evidence for the existence of god would make me estatic.

But that's not going to happen until someone can find a good definition of "God".

"self-aware" is the best I've got so far.

Popthree13,

I have to disagree. Evolution is as chaotic an event as can be pointed at. There are trillions of randomly generated failures for every success. Everything possible is tried with a statistically insignificant amount of success.

And part of "intelligent" (working definition) must "sel-aware". A "Hive Intelligence" may be possible, but I would suggest that such a thing is so alien to human intelligence as to rate a lable of it's own.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 07:31 PM

TheHammerSpeaks,

"Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty."

I disagree. The properties of Uncertainty Itself may be understoood.

"It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible."

All events are possible that occurr within the confines of the Rules of Reality. Other events are NOT possible. The trick is knowing the difference. And the rules.

"I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience)."

I can! But it's an old argument- Reasonable logic versus Pragmatic Logic. Just like the Main Debate.

"I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence."

No, you can't. But that's another thread.

"This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being."

Besides obtuse, what is this statement?

"We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought."

Again. sir, I disagree, and do not live my life on "leaps of Faith".

"Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God."

I find it quite explicable. As someone purported to have more wisdom than I once pointed out, among us are the believers and the seekers. The problem lies in the need of the believers to substantiate thier faith as science.

It's Faith, no evidence needed. This I understand.
It's the no evidence wanted attitude that is beyond me. And it's antithesis- pretending to evidence that is not.

You claim the power of your Faith, and I ask "what and where is your god?" I don't see him. So I look for evidence- objective evidence. REAL evidence.

But- what is real? Fundementals first.

"Componets of Reality influence one another in an observable manner"

So, by this definition is your god real?

Not quite. Religion, however, is a real force.

So I look elsewhere.

A hint among the religious, maybe?
No go, for they quickly take offense when I don't convert.

So some of us look in the obvious place- the Universe all around us. It may or may not be a god construct, but it's all we've got. So we work with it.

So far, there's simply no evidence for an human-type-intelligence behind a supremebeing who functions as the Great Architect. Probability seems to be the way.

But some of us will countinue to seek to understand, to use the tools of curiosity and intelligence (be they god given or random occurances) that we possess to learn a little bit more of the truth of what IS.

You'll have to use your Christian forgivness when I tell you I find this the much more noble path than that taken by the believers.

Dizzy Man

06-11-2004, 08:30 PM

ericf:

"'Impossible?' The cry of the uneducated!"

Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty. It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible. I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience). I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence. This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being. We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought. Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God. I find this to be the most convincing argument for God's existence.

However, doubtless, many, I dare say the majority (not that I care much for them), will be unconvcinced by this argument. I then offer two additional proofs: 1) the cosmological argument, which I have been fond of since I began to study philosophy, and 2) the teleological argument, which has persistently grown on me in recent years. If the combined weight of these three arguments fail to convince an unbeliever, then I say that this person cannot be convinced; but I also must urge this person, in the name of philosophical consistency, to deny his own existence as well.Hammer, that was very well-written and very entertaining :)

Gecko,
I wonder: have you ever prayed? I think (and I may be wrong) that faith is more valuable to God from someone more intelligent and sceptical. God obviously appreciates all these stupid gullable people who sign up to the first religion they hear about and become fanatics, but I would imagine if a very open minded person like you (or me) opens their mind to the possibility of God existing, then it would be more rewarding to him. (Just my opinion, anyway,)

So, why not talk to him, under the hypothesis that he is real, and ask him to show himself to you. The worst that could happen is absolutely nothing.

I may be wrong, but I have this feeling you've never prayed and would never even try. I'm probably totally wrong, though. Maybe you used to be a priest and you were fed up of all the lies and packed it in years ago!

TheHammerSpeaks

06-11-2004, 08:40 PM

"All events are possible that occurr within the confines of the Rules of Reality. Other events are NOT possible. The trick is knowing the difference. And the rules."

And what Rules are these? The laws of physics, perhaps? I can easily imagine the laws of physics defied in my mind. So my questions to you are, "What makes my own subjective experience any less real than the objective world (assuming that there is one to begin with). Why should the subjective world be subordinate to the objective; what is the origin (history) of this hierarchy? Can the objective world be known with certainty?

"I can! But it's an old argument- Reasonable logic versus Pragmatic Logic. Just like the Main Debate."

Then please, by all means, take me through this argument! Take me through the reasonable/pragmatic distinction! Take me through the Main Debate!

"No, you can't [doubt the existence of the self]. But that's another thread."

I do not think that another thread will be necessary. Hume's argument is easily summarised. Presupposing empiricist epistemology, there is no sense impression of the self. Therefore, the idea of the self is one based on consistency and coherence, and does not constitute true knowledge.

"Besides obtuse, what is this statement [the necessity of presupposing existence for knowledge]?"

Besides obtuse, it is Kierkegaard's argument for the existence of God. Allow me to use a more concrete example. Revisionist historians, holocaust deniers, do not presuppose the existence of the holocaust. Upon failing to presuppose its existence, one can easily arrive at their conclusions (e.g. doctored photographs, an international Zionist conspiracy, etc.). Likewise, since the existence of the holocaust is not presupposed, nothing can be known about it (because it never happened). This is really the heart of the argument.

"Again. sir, I disagree, and do not live my life on "leaps of Faith"."

Then I am impressed that you have managed to live to the age that you have, and I strongly urge you to live by such leaps out of concern for your health and well being!

By another of Hume's arguments, one cannot know with certainty that drinking arsenic will kill a man. It is only through consistency and coherence that we presuppose the existence of causality.

"As someone purported to have more wisdom than I once pointed out, among us are the believers and the seekers. The problem lies in the need of the believers to substantiate thier faith as science."

I do no such thing. I have little faith in the natural sciences.

"You claim the power of your Faith, and I ask 'what and where is your god?' I don't see him. So I look for evidence- objective evidence. REAL evidence."

If I may answer this question with another question, I would ask, "What are where is your self?" I don't see him.

"Componets of Reality influence one another in an observable manner"

I disagree with this statement, but let us presuppose it for now.

"So, by this definition is your god real?

Not quite. Religion, however, is a real force."

It appears that you are mimicing Feuerbach's argument, so I will continue in that vein. Let us presuppose that a subject can only be known through its predicates. If God is absolute subject, then He is an 'empty' subject, meaning that He is unknowable, a void. If God is an empty subject, then from where does religious experience originate? Feuerbach would answer, "From within ourselves! It is our essence! Man is God!" I would respond that if religious feeling is merely my essence, if it is a part of me, then what is this fear that overcomes me when I contemplate the divine? Why would I fear... myself?

"So some of us look in the obvious place- the Universe all around us. It may or may not be a god construct, but it's all we've got. So we work with it."

You are leaving our yourself as an object of contemplation. I find that answers come more readily through introspection, and that the universe outside of myself cannot be understood until I understand myself first.

"But some of us will countinue to seek to understand, to use the tools of curiosity and intelligence (be they god given or random occurances) that we possess to learn a little bit more of the truth of what IS.

You'll have to use your Christian forgivness when I tell you I find this the much more noble path than that taken by the believers."

And I am sure that you, atheist, will be baffled at my belief in the virtue of the absurd and irrational.

Dizzy Man

06-11-2004, 08:58 PM

Ooh, don't call Gecko an atheist. He doesn't like that! :)

POPthree13

06-11-2004, 09:39 PM

Dizzy - Your phobia case is a good example because phobias are rarely transferred via genetics or environment. A phobia is a personal psychological state which is usually based on an event in a persons life. It is rarely passed on (at least in the true sense of a phobia - maybe more of a reservation). Instinct seems to be real 'knowledge' that is passed down through generations without any need for communication in the common sense of the word. Although DNA can contain lots and lots of information can we really suggest that is hold enough information to 'hard-wire' an organism with the vast array and quantity of instincts with which they are born?

Gecko - I disagree. Evolution is anything but random. Sure, life tries everything, goes in all directions, is wrought with failures, but the fact that some things succeed while other do not is evidence in itself of the un-chaotic nature of the process. If global temperatures continue to rise we can project how creatures may adapt, what creatures may go extinct, and what creature may thrive and spread. Although the picture is very large, this indicates an intelligent system. If it were completely random then there would be no progression. Chaos does not build complexity. Systems build complexity out of chaos. Gravity builds galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems out of what would otherwise be random distributions of atoms. Likewise, I think, the Other force builds complex life out of what would otherwise be a bunch of amino acids.

In short their has to be some advantage to evolving the traits we do or otherwise we wouldn't evolve them. If there is advantage, then it isn't random. It isn't chaos... it's weighted and directional.
Gecko - you do live your life based on leaps of faith. You just take them so much for granted (as we all do) that it seems like reality. In reality we KNOW nothing and NOTHING is really able to be labeled as truth. Everyhting we know is based on our experience and the experience on the monkeys that have lived since the time we were able to start recording our thoughts. As a species we are like infants who have defined and categorize a bunch of crap into a bunch of buckets that gives us some basis upon which to talk, think and live. Is any of it truth? Not really... but we can come up with some good representations. Math, logic, physical laws... they are all good guidelines but they are all still OUR systems of understanding. They may be true to us, but that doesn't make them truth. Is that car red? Depends on who you ask... Can 'red' be truly defined seperately from human experience? Not really... otherwise it's just a frequency which means little... and even then the boundaries of the color are up for debate.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 10:34 PM

Hammer,

All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption.

Eliminate them and what is left?

All the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate.

Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more.

You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality. You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality. This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real.

Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation.

I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread.

But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire.

Dizzyman,
I've prayed sincerly like any man who has faced death and violence. Each of those incidences convinced me I was on the right track.

I've disscussed vision with you.

"If I am to accept this god", I used to ask, "why dosen't he simply present proof of his existence. They say he wants my attention. Well, then, let him speak up."

And then I'd laugh and make cracks about all the homocentric idiots with ther magic books.

Then I made a quatum leap of my own and understood that, indeed, atheist are theist (as recently pointed out so eloquently by JJ), and they too, were blind to the reality all around them.

I dropped all presupposition and took a look.

Maybe this god IS speaking up. But not through the homocentric nonsense of prophets, messiah's, and magic books. But through Reality itself. So I began to re-double my studies of reality.

I don't deny the possible existence of the "God Concept".
But if you're going to give me details of God, then I'll continue too pick them apart if they don't come wrapped in a more comprehensive explanation.

Without being sure of any result, I seek god through understanding, not Faith and whorship.
-----
When I was in the 8th grade we stole the key to our algebra final. It was multiple choice. A,C,D...

It was a set-up. Every answer was wrong. We got in big trouble.

So you'll have to forgive me, and others like me, who like to work out the answers for ourselves.

And know, I'm not an atheist- I'm an Equist.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 10:51 PM

Gecko - I disagree. Evolution is anything but random. Sure, life tries everything, goes in all directions, is wrought with failures, but the fact that some things succeed while other do not is evidence in itself of the un-chaotic nature of the process.

[The mathematical tools nesacary to handle the evolution of life do not yet exist. This leaves the subject within the realm of Mathematical Chaos. That's what I mean.
There is no doubt that the theroetical possibility of prediction may exist. But for now, it remains a valid state-of-the-art analogy.]

If global temperatures continue to rise we can project how creatures may adapt, what creatures may go extinct, and what creature may thrive and spread.

[Project, yes. But on what level, and with what probability? Eventually-perhaps. But not now. Not accurately.]

Although the picture is very large, this indicates an intelligent system. If it were completely random then there would be no progression. Chaos does not build complexity. Systems build complexity out of chaos. Gravity builds galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems out of what would otherwise be random distributions of atoms. Likewise, I think, the Other force builds complex life out of what would otherwise be a bunch of amino acids.

[All this is true... except the first sentence. Pure unqualified opinion. Intelligence is not required.
The evident existence of this Other Force gave birth to the Equiotic view of existence.]

In short their has to be some advantage to evolving the traits we do or otherwise we wouldn't evolve them. If there is advantage, then it isn't random. It isn't chaos... it's weighted and directional.

[The advantage of evironment that a particular change may impart is only temporary, for the environment itself is subjet to evolution on another level.]

Gecko - you do live your life based on leaps of faith. You just take them so much for granted (as we all do) that it seems like reality.

[Please give me an example.]

In reality we KNOW nothing and NOTHING is really able to be labeled as truth.

[Philosophical nonesense. The computer works, dosen't it?]

Everyhting we know is based on our experience and the experience on the monkeys that have lived since the time we were able to start recording our thoughts. As a species we are like infants who have defined and categorize a bunch of crap into a bunch of buckets that gives us some basis upon which to talk, think and live. Is any of it truth? Not really... but we can come up with some good representations. Math, logic, physical laws... they are all good guidelines but they are all still OUR systems of understanding. They may be true to us, but that doesn't make them truth. Is that car red? Depends on who you ask... Can 'red' be truly defined seperately from human experience? Not really... otherwise it's just a frequency which means little... and even then the boundaries of the color are up for debate.
[Your confusing the subjective for the objective. That's a Homocentrici no-no.]

POPthree13

06-11-2004, 10:59 PM

"Maybe this god IS speaking up. But not through the homocentric nonsense of prophets, messiah's, and magic books. But through Reality itself. So I began to re-double my studies of reality."

I agree with this... I see religions as nothing more than practices which help to: see beyond our reality, come to terms with our own psychological issues, and find peace in system greater than ourselves. Using religion for anything else, is in my opinion, misguided, and many an intelligent person should find practices which work to these ends on their own instead of having them handed to them.
If someone find a religion which meets these needs without the need to compromise their search and understanding then by all means, practice it. If you don't find a religion which can do this, find the answers for yourself and don't for one second think that an organized religion is any more spiritual just because it has a book, a history, a savior and a bunch of followers.

The only true goal of a religion should be (IMO) to foster a personal relationship and understanding of the Other force which works for the individual. Obviously you do not NEED a religion to do this... many of us seek this out without any religious pressure.

geckopelli

06-11-2004, 11:19 PM

You know, my problem is that I think organized religion has come to be an anti-progress (and I mean Understanding, not technology) obstacle.

The Bible and it's ilk had many uses. But Had is the operative word.

The world of Lavosier and Madame Curie is not the stagnat wolrld of the past.

Time for something new.

POPthree13

06-11-2004, 11:29 PM

Gecko -
Reagrdless of our ability to predict or measure the path of evolution it follows a specific path. It has direction. We can not predict with any amount of accuracy where raindrops will fall and how they will make it to the ocean, again it would appear as mathmatical chaos, but again we see repetition and direction which we can attribute to the basic rules of gravity and evaporation. It isn't true chaos because a raindrop that falls on a particular soil type with a particual saturation level with a particular slope will direct that drop of rain in a (somewhat) predictable manner. Yes, chaos plays a part, but since there are tendencies it is not chaos.

I don't think saying that the systems of evolution include an 'intelligent component' is pure unqualified opinion. Why did the fish climb from the sea? Did they just randomly plop out there? No. They consciously tried to take advantage of an untapped food source and slowly but surely evolved into creatures which could stay out of the water longer and longer. I am not saying these fish were rocket scientists, but they were able to pick up on the advantages of pursuing this terrestrial food and force adaptation to these conditions. Evolution fills niches. How can something fill a niche without any understanding that the opportunity exists? Therefore I propose that intelligence must be used (in it's most basic form) to pursue new food sources, new environments and new practices which force evolution into a path that will provide adaptation.
As in my example... if the globe continues to warm birds will migrate further and further north. They use (basic) intelligence to decide how far to go. Evolution will follow their lead and the species will adapt to these new conditions. Evolution based on conscious decisions.

Gecko... leaps of faith...
We do not have one shred of evidence that the earth will be here tomorrow. History suggest that it might, but going to bed with the assumption that the earth will be here is blind faith. You take a step with faith that the earth's gravity will hold you to it, but do we even REALLY know what gravity is? You go to the ATM and assume you know how much money your going to have, but that too is just faith.
I don't know.. is your computer working? I work in computers and I can tell you they don't always work, and often I can't tell you why they aren't. What is a computer? What do you mean by saying it 'works'? My computer is different from your computer... Computer is a very broad category and every single thing we can classify as a computer is different - even ones from the same company from the same assembly line. Sameness is an illusion. Your computer's contents are changing all the time. So is your term for computer just an instant snapshot of your machine at this indvisible moment? Then it's not very appl;icable to my computer. Therefore anything you say about a computer applies only to that computer at that indivisible moment in time. There are tendencires for computers to work, but that doesn't make a statement like 'computers work' true. What makes a computer a computer? Where does the computer stop and the desk start - subatomically? Why is that material that makes up this computer stable on this planet... couldn't that change in a fraction of a second provided the physical laws governing this planet changed? A statement like 'the comuter is working' is not truth unless you can COMPETELY define what a computer is, and COMPETELY define what working is. I suggest that you can not, and therefore it is just an abstract representation of an idea upon which we can agree. Not truth.

I am not confusing subjective and objective at all. I simply don't beleive there is a such thing as objective reality.

POPthree13

06-11-2004, 11:36 PM

I agree religion has often held back discovery and understanding... but that is because the institutions from which we receive religion are often focused on control and greed. Any attempt to control, cut-off, and complete the religious picture is pure nonsense. If there is a God, it is a living God, that probably mirrors the life we see. It changes all the time, it grows, it moves... Anythign that can't grow and move with it is obsolete the second it is written.
Jesus didn't write much did he? I think he was pretty clever. If only those who followed him were as wise...

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 12:26 AM

"All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption."

No, I am arguing that all of your arguments depend upon the presupposition that science is superior to art, object to subject, epistemology to metaphysics.

"[What is left is a]ll the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate."

My philosophy is certainly based upon an understanding of the history of philosophy. That I will not deny; I am rather proud of this, actually. I feel that all great philosophers built upon the work of their predesessors, and why not do so? These men go down in the annals of philosophy precisely because they were great, so why not build upon their insights? But to suggest that a historically-minded philosophy can be stagnant seems to me a contradiction in terms.

When did I ever suggest that the universe is stagnant? On the contrary, I see your philosophy as stagnant with your faith in grammar, in your essential 'I', in your clear-cut division between subject and object. It does not make room for multiplicity in the world. A philosophy which does not pay proper attention to will and idea cannot account for change.

My aruments, useless? How can something that uncovers the nature of God, the self, and knowledge be considered useless? This is the philosophy and religion forum; these are the kinds of questions philosophers and theologians answer. You write things that make me think you feel more at home in the science and technology forum.

"Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

"You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality."

Not exactly, more that the relationship between the two can never be known.

"You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality."

No, I say that the interaction between God and the physical world can never be understood.

"This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real."

No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

"Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

"I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread."

I do not feel that we are off topic. This thread is titled, "Can you prove that God exists." Since no sufficient argument, in your eyes, has been presented, it seems natural to inquire as to why such an argument is not forthcoming, and whether the conclusion of this inquiry supports or depreciates the case for the existence of God.

"But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire."

What luck! One of my old professors was a pragmatist! But if we were to discuss Pragmatism at this stage in the debate, that would be grounds to create a new thread.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 12:35 AM

Gecko -
Reagrdless of our ability to predict or measure the path of evolution it follows a specific path. It has direction. We can not predict with any amount of accuracy where raindrops will fall and how they will make it to the ocean, again it would appear as mathmatical chaos, but again we see repetition and direction which we can attribute to the basic rules of gravity and evaporation. It isn't true chaos because a raindrop that falls on a particular soil type with a particual saturation level with a particular slope will direct that drop of rain in a (somewhat) predictable manner. Yes, chaos plays a part, but since there are tendencies it is not chaos.

[It IS the type of thing that Chaos Theory is meant to deal with. Again, I was refering to Chaos theory- not the paradox of Chaos.]

I don't think saying that the systems of evolution include an 'intelligent component' is pure unqualified opinion. Why did the fish climb from the sea? Did they just randomly plop out there? No. They consciously tried to take advantage of an untapped food source and slowly but surely evolved into creatures which could stay out of the water longer and longer. I am not saying these fish were rocket scientists, but they were able to pick up on the advantages of pursuing this terrestrial food and force adaptation to these conditions. Evolution fills niches. How can something fill a niche without any understanding that the opportunity exists? Therefore I propose that intelligence must be used (in it's most basic form) to pursue new food sources, new environments and new practices which force evolution into a path that will provide adaptation.

[random is just as valid an explanation, but it dosen't require "I...Think". To say it is the product of intelligent guidenace is to beg the question. The super-intelligence is an awful complexed assumption.

occam's razor.]

As in my example... if the globe continues to warm birds will migrate further and further north. They use (basic) intelligence to decide how far to go. Evolution will follow their lead and the species will adapt to these new conditions. Evolution based on conscious decisions.

[Insticnt- no intelligence required. Are the birds self-aware?]

Gecko... leaps of faith...
We do not have one shred of evidence that the earth will be here tomorrow.

[We have tons of evidence. There is no convievably possible way in which it will NOT be here tommarow. Study physics.]

History suggest that it might, but going to bed with the assumption that the earth will be here is blind faith. You take a step with faith that the earth's gravity will hold you to it, but do we even REALLY know what gravity is? You go to the ATM and assume you know how much money your going to have, but that too is just faith.

[Too easy. I don't assume that when I go to bed. I'm not sure I'll wake-up. I don't know what gravity is- but It can be described so intimentely that I can make an equation. How does that compare to your assumption of intelligent guidance?]

I don't know.. is your computer working? I work in computers and I can tell you they don't always work, and often I can't tell you why they aren't. What is a computer? What do you mean by saying it 'works'? My computer is different from your computer... Computer is a very broad category and every single thing we can classify as a computer is different - even ones from the same company from the same assembly line. Sameness is an illusion. Your computer's contents are changing all the time. So is your term for computer just an instant snapshot of your machine at this indvisible moment? Then it's not very appl;icable to my computer. Therefore anything you say about a computer applies only to that computer at that indivisible moment in time. There are tendencires for computers to work, but that doesn't make a statement like 'computers work' true. What makes a computer a computer? Where does the computer stop and the desk start - subatomically? Why is that material that makes up this computer stable on this planet... couldn't that change in a fraction of a second provided the physical laws governing this planet changed? A statement like 'the comuter is working' is not truth unless you can COMPETELY define what a computer is, and COMPETELY define what working is. I suggest that you can not, and therefore it is just an abstract representation of an idea upon which we can agree. Not truth.

[Hypocrisy? You ask for a Complet definition of "working", yet demand Faith in non-tagibles?

Working: applying energy and obtaining a result.
Pretty definitive definition.]

I am not confusing subjective and objective at all. I simply don't beleive there is a such thing as objective reality.

[your belief is not to be confused with reality.

"Reality is as reality does"- opinions and belifes not with standing.]

Message too short? what the hell?

FreakyJoeMan

06-12-2004, 12:44 AM

We can neither prove, or disprove the existance of god. So, just formulat yer own damn opinion, and stop relyin on other people to do it for ya. And just think, could evidence of a creator be surmized by humans? What if, on the inside of quarks, it was written, in red ball point pen, "Dave was Here"?

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 01:05 AM

"All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption."

No, I am arguing that all of your arguments depend upon the presupposition that science is superior to art, object to subject, epistemology to metaphysics.

[Argue what you may, but Science is not an art- unless you consider it the "art of observing reality". An religion is not a science.]

"[What is left is a]ll the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate."

My philosophy is certainly based upon an understanding of the history of philosophy. That I will not deny; I am rather proud of this, actually. I feel that all great philosophers built upon the work of their predesessors, and why not do so? These men go down in the annals of philosophy precisely because they were great, so why not build upon their insights? But to suggest that a historically-minded philosophy can be stagnant seems to me a contradiction in terms.

[The same on going and never changing debate is useless. It has proven of little value to humanity and nothing leads me to expect a sudden philosophical break through in the same old spiel.

Time for something New.]

When did I ever suggest that the universe is stagnant? On the contrary, I see your philosophy as stagnant with your faith in grammar, in your essential 'I', in your clear-cut division between subject and object. It does not make room for multiplicity in the world. A philosophy which does not pay proper attention to will and idea cannot account for change.

[Again, your opinon against reality.

I am a semi-professional writer. I watch my form and I simplfy my speech for understanding- nothing personal, but who knows who may find interest in this exchange?

To write is a tool of the many, too be understood a gift of the few.

My philosophy pays attention to all things substantial. I have posted it many times- and will do so now if you are not familiar with it. ( hear that groan!)]

My aruments, useless? How can something that uncovers the nature of God, the self, and knowledge be considered useless? This is the philosophy and religion forum; CYou write things that make me think you feel more at home in the science and technology forum.

[theologians and the like ASK, but DO NOT answer questions. They uncover nothing but one anothers opinions. ZERO evidence. If all men die tonight- what value your philosophy?

Let me tell you- when standing on death's door, philosophy is of little value.]

"Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

[You can test my basic theories.
you pre-suppoose the existence of god with zero evidence. You can't even test his existence. Pure Assumption.

Word games won't work. I am well versed in semantics.]

"You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality."

Not exactly, more that the relationship between the two can never be known.

[I know it. So do many others.

Subjective- your love is the stongest ever.

Objective- she cheated on you and stole your DVD.]

"You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality."

No, I say that the interaction between God and the physical world can never be understood.

[Explanation: no god.

occam's razor.]

"This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real."

No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

[More word games. The tooth fairy is real, because I believe it.]

"Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

[You require HUMAN opinion to validate reality- the very definition of homocentric!]

"I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread."

I do not feel that we are off topic. This thread is titled, "Can you prove that God exists." Since no sufficient argument, in your eyes, has been presented, it seems natural to inquire as to why such an argument is not forthcoming, and whether the conclusion of this inquiry supports or depreciates the case for the existence of God.

[For reasons not relavant now (read: long and boring), it would be better for all concerned if we not hijack this thread to too great a degree.

I've been looking for that "sufficient arguement" for a long time.]

"But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire."

What luck! One of my old professors was a pragmatist! But if we were to discuss Pragmatism at this stage in the debate, that would be grounds to create a new thread.
Don't misunderstand me- I don't mean I follow anothers philosophy.

I mean I AM a completely pragmatic individual. It's the nature of the life I've led. I don't make unqualified assumptions.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 01:08 AM

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 02:25 AM

"Argue what you may, but Science is not an art- unless you consider it the 'art of observing reality'. And religion is not a science.

And neither is philosophy. That is the point I was driving.

"The same on going and never changing debate is useless. It has proven of little value to humanity and nothing leads me to expect a sudden philosophical break through in the same old spiel."

New breakthroughs are being made all the time. Popper must have developed his falsificationism in the fifties, and I do not believe that deconstruction gained any serious recognition until the early seventies. Derrida is still alive, even.

"Time for something New."

The scientific method is hardly new, let alone New.

"I am a semi-professional writer. I watch my form and I simplfy my speech for understanding- nothing personal, but who knows who may find interest in this exchange?"

"Faith in grammar" was a reference to Nietzsche; it had nothing to do with form or technique. However, while writing clearly is of great importance, it is often necessary to assume that the reader is familiar, to a certain degree, with the works of popular philosophers for the sake of brevity. I think it was Nietzsche himself who proved that great works of philosophy can be written in fifty pages.

"My philosophy pays attention to all things substantial. I have posted it many times- and will do so now if you are not familiar with it. ( hear that groan!)"

By all means! I would reciprocate, but I have no system.

"[T]heologians and the like ASK, but DO NOT answer questions. They uncover nothing but one anothers opinions. ZERO evidence."

Francis Bacon was a philosopher before a scientist. If philosophers do not uncover knowledge, then all the gains of the scientific method do not constitute knowledge.

"If all men die tonight- what value your philosophy?"

I imagine that if all men died tonight there would be very little value in anything.

"Let me tell you- when standing on death's door, philosophy is of little value."

Perhaps, but faith is everything; and if philosophy can lead one to faith, then why not take that road?

"Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

"You can test my basic theories.
you pre-suppoose the existence of god with zero evidence. You can't even test his existence. Pure Assumption."

Not only did I offer the cosmological and teleological arguments as proof in the first post I made on this thread, but I made it clear that nothing can be known about a being unless the existence of the being is presupposed.

"Word games won't work. I am well versed in semantics."

There are no word games here, just brutal honesty.

"I know it. So do many others."

And so did Kant, and so did Hegel, and so did Schopenhauer, and holes were found in all of their arguments.

"Explanation: no god."

No, to make that conclusion I would have to find an explaination for the subject/object distinction elsewhere. There is no logical explaination to be found, so the only explaination left is a Being who can transcend the limits of logic.

No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

"More word games. The tooth fairy is real, because I believe it."

This is not about knowledge vs. belief; it is about the limits of rationality.

"Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

"You require HUMAN opinion to validate reality- the very definition of homocentric!"

No, you need subjective experience to validate reality, I never said it has to be a human subject. An animal is a subject, so is God, even a rock is a subject (though I do not believe it can experience).

"For reasons not relavant now (read: long and boring), it would be better for all concerned if we not hijack this thread to too great a degree."

If you post your response to this in another thread, I will post all subsequent replies there, as well.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 04:41 AM

Again, all you say is opinon. None of it has any real world implications. No insight may be gained. No basis for prediction is offered.

You talk of god- but it's just talk. It get's you know where. Your whorship of past icons dose nothing to progress your knowledge.

If humanity ceased now, it would be of little consequence to the Universe.
------------------------
EQUIOTICS

C / U à O + E + U à e + t + U à C + U

Chaosßà Uncertainty

PRIMARY REACTION

Chaos / Uncertainty à Order + Entropy + Uncertainty

SECONDARY REACTIONS

I. Order + Uncertainty àExpressions of Energy + Uncertainty

II. Entropy + Uncertainty àExpressions of Entropy + Uncertainty

TERTIARY REACTION

Expressions of Energy + Expressions of Entropy + Uncertaintyà Chaos + Uncertainty

The Axioms of Equiotics

I. Uncertainty Permeates

II. Order is the basis of Existence

III. Existence is subjugated to Entropy

The Precepts

I. Existence remains consistent within it’s self

II. Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.

III. The universe can be perceived at multiple levels

Life + Energy x Environment --> Increasing Complexity of available life-forms.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 05:06 AM

Ps
reality requires no validation. It simply IS- Human opinon not withstanding.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 05:24 AM

"Again, all you say is opinon. None of it has any real world implications."

Faith is a real world implication; making one's life into a work of art is a real world implication.

"No insight may be gained."

Insight into the nature of God, the self, and knowledge may be gained. I already said this, and you have not composed any response to this other than "that's just your opinion," which is not at all convincing.

"No basis for prediction is offered."

So what? The truth is that nothing can be predicted with certainty. You have not formulated a response to this either.

"You talk of god- but it's just talk."

No, faith is a process of becoming; I have written this before too.

"It get's you know where."

A Freudian slip, perhaps.

"Your whorship of past icons dose nothing to progress your knowledge."

How egocentric can you be to dismiss the greatest minds the world has ever produced and put yourself, a completely unknown pseudo-philosopher, on a pedestal so far above them? I do not mindlessly agree with agree with my "icons," rather I point out their flaws and expand upon their merits. This is what every philosopher worth reading does. I have not heard enough of your thought to formulate a definate analysis yet. However, I greatly suspect that at least one of your problems is that you dehistoricize everything.

"If humanity ceased now, it would be of little consequence to the Universe."

I do not think that philosophy in general would be of any consequence to anything if humanity ceased to be, yours included.

EQUIOTICS

C / U à O + E + U à e + t + U à C + U

Chaosßà Uncertainty

PRIMARY REACTION

Chaos / Uncertainty à Order + Entropy + Uncertainty

SECONDARY REACTIONS

I. Order + Uncertainty àExpressions of Energy + Uncertainty

II. Entropy + Uncertainty àExpressions of Entropy + Uncertainty

TERTIARY REACTION

Expressions of Energy + Expressions of Entropy + Uncertaintyà Chaos + Uncertainty

The Axioms of Equiotics

I. Uncertainty Permeates

II. Order is the basis of Existence

III. Existence is subjugated to Entropy

The Precepts

I. Existence remains consistent within it’s self

II. Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.

III. The universe can be perceived at multiple levels

Life + Energy x Environment --> Increasing Complexity of available life-forms.What is this supposed to be? Please do not tell me that is your philosophy! I guess you should probably take me through it step by step; I have already come this far. But this is going to be easy.

"reality requires no validation. It simply IS- Human opinon not withstanding."

If by validation, you mean verification, then that is a presupposition very similar to Kierkegaard's argument for the existence of God, which you rejected. In your philosophy, which appartently prides itself on being free of presupposition, this presents a problem. You offer no argument supporting the existence of an objective world other than, "It simply is." You accept a leap of faith only when it suits your purposes.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 05:47 AM

Reality is my philosophy.

Your list of great minds lacks a single man of non-homocentric genius. Great minds? They answered no questions. The questions they asked were completley homocentric, in any case.

I Tend to John Lokce and Albert Einstien for my philosophical bent, I'm afraid- practical men, ultimately.
----------
Your opinion is what is unconvincing. You state the existence of god and than back it up with empty rhetoric. "It's true because I say it's true and that means it's true. And other people thought it was true back when the earth was the center of thje solar system." Same tired bible defence disguised.
-----------
Equiotics is probably outside your ken, because it allows for no assumptions. It does, however, allow for a possible god and the human conciet known as philosophy. As well as Quatum Physics and Uncertainty.

I defy you to do better or to tear holes in it.

I warn you it's been subject to much debate among so-called theologan and bona-fide physcist.
------
But please- merely insisting I'm wrong without offering evidence of right has never succeded in these forums, and it won't succeed now.

"There is a god"- offer one shred of real evidence.

You can't.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 06:06 AM

"Reality is my philosophy."

That sounds very nice, but you still need to run through your arguments step by step if I am to critique them.

"Your list of great minds lacks a single man of non-homocentric genius. Great minds? They answered no questions. The questions they asked were completley homocentric, in any case."

What is it with you and homocentricity? First of all, homocentricity is not a fallacy; and second, I am not homocentric, as I have already demonstrated.

"I Tend to John Lokce and Albert Einstien for my philosophical bent, I'm afraid- practical men, ultimately."

Firstly, both of those men believed in God. Secondly, Einstein was not a philosopher and never said anything of any philosophical importance (not that this subtracts from his ability as a physicist, a subject of which I know nothing) of which I am aware. And finally, John Locke's philosophy is full of holes (e.g. the primary/secondary quality distinction) and presuppositions (e.g. universal human rights).

"Your opinion is what is unconvincing. You state the existence of god and than back it up with empty rhetoric. "It's true because I say it's true and that means it's true. And other people thought it was true back when the earth was the center of thje solar system." Same tired bible defence disguised."

Have you been paying the slightest bit of attention to my arguments?

"Equiotics is probably outside your ken, because it allows for no assumptions. It does, however, allow for a possible god and the human conciet known as philosophy. As well as Quatum Physics and Uncertainty."

Equiotics? What is the etymology of that? The navigation of horses? And I just pointed out an assumption of "equiotics" in my last post which you never responded to. In a debate, you cannot just ignore questions you cannot answer.

"I defy you to do better or to tear holes in it."

How can a tear holes in it if you want explain it to me?

"But please- merely insisting I'm wrong without offering evidence of right has never succeded in these forums, and it won't succeed now."

That never succeeds anywhere, and that is precisely why you have not convinced me of anything so far.

"'There is a god'- offer one shred of real evidence."

How many times do I have to do this: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, existence must be presupposed to have any kind of knowledge of anything. I have offered these three arguments for the third time now, and you have not criticized them once, apart from saying, "That's your opinion." That's not going to cut it.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 06:15 AM

Your arguments are useless.

Just because you state them does not give validation to them. they fall flat in the face of reality.

Non sequitor is non sequitor.

I am a student of reality. Your words describe nothing but other words. They're valueless.

You've offered no proof of god. You've stated that conciousness is required for existence. Unqualified statements are well and good; but who cares?

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 06:29 AM

Jesus Christ. I am going to make this as clear as I possibly can: POST YOUR PHILOSOPHY SO THAT I MAY CRITIQUE IT! I hope that sinks in this time.

"Your arguments are useless.

Just because you state them does not give validation to them. they fall flat in the face of reality."

So you've said again... and again... and again; but that's not a critique, that's
a statement and has absolutely no value unless you present arguments to back it up. I presented the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and Kierkegaard's argument. Now, you have to tell me what's wrong with those arguments. That's how a debate works. Keep in mind that you cannot just say, "That has no bearing on reality!" or anything else along those lines. You must present an argument with premises and a conclusion. Now, could you please do that so that this thread becomes productive again and so that I can stop repeating myself.

"I am a student of reality. Your words describe nothing but other words. They're valueless."

So you've said, but, you see, that's not an argument. Saying that something is valueless does not make it so, it does not even make it false.

"You've offered no proof of god."

Do I really have to write them again? You should have them memorised by now! Please, critique them!

"You've stated that conciousness is required for existence. Unqualified statements are well and good; but who cares?"

No, I didn't. I stated that consciousness is required to know existence, in your own words, to "verify" it.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 06:40 AM

Your words offer litte self-justifacation, in spite of what you think.

A thing is not so becuase you say it is. Words are a human construct; not to be mistaken for the concepts they try to describe.
-----
An explanation:
"Since beginnings begin endings and endings end beginnings, than naturally the end of the ending is the beginning of the beginning."

Before the beginning, there was chaos.

Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began.

Chaos split in half; on one side was energy, and on the other entropy.

Energy shattered into the forces known to science, an possibly inexplicable others.

Entropy began “gathering toward Chaos” in the form of time/space/gravity and all its attributes.

Thusly was the Universe born.

And though it all, Uncertainty remained supreme.
-----
And these basic priciples stand.

There is a tendency to seek Chaos. There is a weaker tendency to seek order.

This can be seen in all things.

Even homocentricity.

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 06:42 AM

Now state your philosophy- a magician on a cloud rules all?

geckopelli

06-12-2004, 06:45 AM

Give it up, juicy. I'm tired of this.

your assumption of god remains an assumption.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 07:13 AM

You've got to be kidding me. I wasted an hour of my night trying to coax that out of you? Sleeping would have been more productive! It shouldn't take long to formulate a critique.

First of all, your "philosophy" is not a complete system. There is no serious discussion of metaphysics, no epistemology, no ethics, and no aesthetics. I'm not sure if it could even be considered a philosophy to begin with. All you have is a creation story.

"Before the beginning, there was chaos."

Problem #1: You assume that there was a beginning in the first place. How are you so certain that matter has not always existed?

Problem #2: What did chaos consist of? I'm really just curious as to why you chose the word "chaos" over, say, "void."

"Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began."

Problem #3: If you don't know exactly what happened, then how do you know it happened at all?

"Chaos split in half; on one side was energy, and on the other entropy."

Problem #4: What, exactly, are you basing this upon? What about matter, or idea, or will? How did those things come out of energy and entropy?

Problem #5: What, exactly, is entropy? Can I see it?

"Energy shattered into the forces known to science, and possibly inexplicable others."

Problem #6: What caused energy to shatter?

Problem #7: How can a concrete thing such as energy become an abstract concept such as science? Through what process?

Problem #8: How is science a force?

"Entropy began 'gathering toward Chaos' in the form of time/space/gravity and all its attributes."

Problem #9: I'm no physicist, but isn't gravity a form of energy?

Problem #10: Why are space and time necessarily chaotic?

Problem #11: What force pulled entropy towards chaos if not energy?

"Thusly was the Universe born.

And though it all, Uncertainty remained supreme."

Hallelujah!

"And these basic priciples stand.

There is a tendency to seek Chaos. There is a weaker tendency to seek order.

This can be seen in all things.

Even homocentricity."

Problem #12: How do you know? Have you seen all things?

Problem #13: What is the nature of these tendencies?

Problem #14: Then why don't all things eventually gravitate towards chaos?

Well, that was one of the stupidest things I have ever read and a complete waste of time. All this time I thought you were a strict adherent to the scientific method, but really you just spout some mystical order/chaos distinction. You know absolutely nothing about philosophy.

"Now state your philosophy"

I already told you, I have not developed a system. Do you know why? Because it take years to do such a thing. It took Kant 12 and in the end he still couldn't make it air tight. Some philosophers even intentionally choose not to create a system, such as Nietzsche. Any idiot can just throw a bunch of vague, ill-defined terms together without explaining the relation of those terms and invent a creation story, as you have done. I'll post what I do have so far tomorrow in summary, or maybe the day after (big day tomorrow). I'm too exhausted right now, and I'd hate to make any slip-ups due to fatigue.

Good night.

Dizzy Man

06-12-2004, 04:53 PM

As far as I'm aware, scientists currently believe the universe is infinite, and had no beginning. Not that this really makes any difference to the argument of God's existence. God could just have easily made the universe infinite than to make it finite.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 05:25 PM

On second thought, I am not going to post my philosophy. Hopefully doing philosophy will some day be my sole source of income, so I'm not going to just give it all away for free. I don't mind posting little snippets of it here and there, but I'm not going to post the whole thing.

I will, however, summarize the basic project: To shift postmodernism away from the sociological and political, and towards the introspection of Kierkegaard and St. Augustine.

I will also list my main influences: St. Augustine, the Victorines, John Duns Scotus, Hamann, (latter) Schelling, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Marcel, and Derrida.

Anyone who reads these philosophers, keeping in mind my project, will have a good understanding about where my thought is going.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-12-2004, 05:37 PM

Problem #16: If time and space are really just manifestations of entropy, and entropy is, by definition, in a constant state of deterioration, how is it possible to consistently measure time and space? Why don't the measurements fluctuate over time as time and space deteriorate?

tikoo

06-12-2004, 08:21 PM

Hmmm .. I suspect once we can get beyond the solar system and then do some yardsticking , well , things is gonna change . Voyager's almost there . Last I heard it was beyond Pluto and encountering some kind of edge wave . Maybe from just beyond the wave it's really no time at all to get to anywhere except back home again . Are you ready for anything ? Do you have a good enough philosophy
to get you through ? I mean , too , a good philosophy can save you
from going blind should you ever encounter a shiny polished God , or at
least keep one from going to sleep from too much at you too fast too
shiny . Don't even blink .

FreakyJoeMan

06-12-2004, 10:09 PM

Assinine!

You can't diprove santa- and how do you know what may come to pass?
Okey, asanine has one "s", or was that 2'nd "s" deliberate? No, I can't totally and utterly dissprove santa, nore can I prove his existance, so, really,all evidence gathering ever done is moot, not that it shouldn't be done, science makes life more interesting. And I don't know what shall happen in the future, nor can anyone, except Ben Afflek and Gandalph.

Meagain

06-13-2004, 12:33 AM

The Cosmological Argument (or temporally first cause)

1. Something exists.
2. If something exists it does so contingent upon something else. That is, it must be caused by something.
3. All something are caused by other somethings.
4. If we follow these somethings back far enough, we must arrive at a "first something" that is not caused by anything else.
5. If anything exists an absolutely necessary being must exist.
6. Something exists, therefore an absolutely necessary first being must exist.

Close enough?

So, this argument is saying that something is happening in nature, but we can not explain it, so we must resort to something super-natural, i.e. God.

Assumptions:

1. Every event must have a cause. This is different than saying that every event has a cause. We can say that an event occurs by chance. We may be wrong, but we are not being self-contradictory, so this is a logical statement.
2. The series of causes must have a beginning. There is no contradiction in saying that something does not have beginning. Consider the series…-5,-4,-3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Each term is preceded (caused) by another, yet there is no first or last term.
3. The first cause has no cause. Why is this stated? Why does the first cause have no cause? We cannot say that there must be a first cause, which has no cause only because we can know nothing about it. We have already claimed to know something about it, it is different from nature.
4. The first cause still exists. Even if there was a first cause, what proof is there that it (God) still exists?

This is a very old argument going back to St. Thomas, I believe, in the 1200’s. We can discuss this more but I don’t see it as being very logical at all.

The Teleological Argument (or order in nature)

This argument equates the universe with a manmade design

1. Nature is an orderly affair. It conforms to pattern and is governed by law.
2. Nature cannot have ordered itself.
3. Order cannot happen by chance.
4. Therefore, the presence of order requires a designer or architect.
Also:

1. Everything has a purpose.
2. Things do not assign themselves purposes (as they have no intelligence).
3. Therefore, the presence of purpose requires a designer or architect.

Have I stated it correctly?

Assumptions:
1. Nature is an orderly affair. We cannot say that nature is necessarily orderly. If we say that the seasons follow one another, we may also say that each day is different. We say that the planets follow orderly orbits, but the dispersion of the stars is random. We cannot prove an orderly universe.
2. Order must come from intelligence. Crystals and salts are not intelligent, yet have order. They may have a guiding force, they may not. The guiding force, if present, does not need to be intelligent, it could be mechanical, instinctual, natural, or any combination of various forces. If we state that the order of crystals, etc. comes form God we are back to the first cause argument.
3. Like effects have like causes. The analogy is based on experience. Even if we grant that an intelligent being is the cause of the universe, we are basing this on the similarity of the universe to some human artifact, such as a house. A house has order and purpose and was constructed by an intelligent being, a man, it did not arrange itself by itself.

A. What leads us to believe that the house was built by an intelligent being? A person who lacks the knowledge required to design the house could have built it. He could copy another house that had been previously built.
B. Why one God? Many different people can build the same house. Why not several Gods to build the universe?
C. Why an immortal God? Couldn’t this God begin and cease to exist at some point.
D. Why not a perfect anthropomorhite? Why can’t the God have corporeal eyes, etc?
E. Why assume this world has a purpose, as a house does? It could be an imperfect world, with no purpose.

I see no reason to assume that this world must be the creation of an intelligent being.

Please summerize the appropiate proof of Kierkegaard.

(Sorry can't get rid of the italics!)

geckopelli

06-13-2004, 01:58 AM

There are so many problems with this, I'll give someone else a chance.

Dizzy Man

06-13-2004, 03:05 AM

There is no question as to whether God 'still' exists.

God does not share our time, so all points in time in our universe are equal to God. I doubt God exists in any kind of time, but if he does, and he ceases to exist at some point in his future, he will still always exist at every point in time in our own future, since all points in time in our universe were created at one point in time in God's life, when he existed.

To put it another way: you can read a book written by a dead person and at no point in that book will the author cease to exist. He existed while he wrote the book, so within the universe of that book, the author is eternal.

A lot of people confuse God's 'time' (if there is such a thing) with Earth time, which are two completely different things. God did not create the universe in the past!

queenannie

06-13-2004, 10:55 AM

God exists because I believe he does.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-13-2004, 08:58 PM

Meagain:

The Cosmological Argument (or temporally first cause)

1. Something exists.
2. If something exists it does so contingent upon something else. That is, it must be caused by something.
3. All something are caused by other somethings.
4. If we follow these somethings back far enough, we must arrive at a "first something" that is not caused by anything else.
5. If anything exists an absolutely necessary being must exist.
6. Something exists, therefore an absolutely necessary first being must exist.

Close enough?

Yes, close enough. The cosmological argument as well as many of the other proofs for God's existence (including the teleological) cannot be attributed to one, single philosopher. They have been expressed in many different ways by many different philosophers, but your summary is accurate, on the whole.

So, this argument is saying that something is happening in nature, but we can not explain it, so we must resort to something super-natural, i.e. God.

Well, it could be viewed that way, but really the argument presupposes that God is a natural phenomenon in the same way that, say, gravity is. I think that this is its biggest flaw.

Assumptions:

1. Every event must have a cause. This is different than saying that every event has a cause. We can say that an event occurs by chance. We may be wrong, but we are not being self-contradictory, so this is a logical statement.

I do not see any difference between saying, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause." The veb "must" is the English modal verb which signifies necessity. It is grouped into the same category as "should" or "ought" or "may"; all of these are modal verbs. However, "must" is the only one of them which signifies necessity. Compare the following sentences:

1) "I go to the store."

2) "I should go to the store."

3) "I may go to the store."

4) "I must go to the store."

Sentence 1 is in the present tense. It is the equivalent of saying, "I am going to the store," meaning that I am, at this moment, going to the store. Sentenses 2 and 3 use modal verbs. Sentence 2 signifies a value judgement, and Sentence 3 signifies possibility. The united factor between the two, however, is that neither of them signify necessity; I do not have to go to the store. Only Sentence 4 signifies necessity.

Necessity, by its very nature, suggests that the event has not yet taken place. If someone says, "I must go to the store," then that person has obviously not left for the store yet. In this way, a modal verb implies the future tense (e.g. "I will go to the store"), meaning that Sentence 4 speaks of a future trip to the store, while Sentence 1, as mentioned before, speaks of the present trip to the store.

Why is this important? If the sentence in question used a definate article ("The event must have a cause"), then it wouldn't be. But your sentence uses a quantifier ("Every event must have a cause"). The quantifier "every" implies that all events, past, present, and future, have a cause. To add the modal verb "must" to the sentence is only redundant, since the future tense is already implied. Therefore, there is no difference whatsoever between the sentences, "Every event has a cause," and, "Every event must have a cause."

As for your argument that chance is not a cause, a cause is simply something that causes something else to happen. If something happens by chance, then chance is, of course, the cause. The real question is, "What is the nature of chance?" Chance is an inexplicable cause. It is a cause without reason. It is spontaineity. But it is still a presupposition to assume that chance itself is without cause.

I seriously question whether chance can cause chance. Isn't that simply redundant? Can one distinguish where chance, the cause, ended and where chance, the effect, began?

2. The series of causes must have a beginning. There is no contradiction in saying that something does not have beginning. Consider the series…-5,-4,-3,-2,-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Each term is preceded (caused) by another, yet there is no first or last term.

I normally don't like using numbers in philosophy since they do not always relate directly to the real world (e.g. Mill's four that does not equal four). Sorites paradox, I believe, is a better example. However, you point still stands. I never suggested that the cosmological argument was air tight. In fact, I even suggested to unbelievers that the "combined weight" of the three arguments may be necessary to be convincing to some.

3. The first cause has no cause. Why is this stated? Why does the first cause have no cause? We cannot say that there must be a first cause, which has no cause only because we can know nothing about it. We have already claimed to know something about it, it is different from nature.

That is the very nature of the unconditioned; it is self-caused. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel developed this idea thoroughly.

4. The first cause still exists. Even if there was a first cause, what proof is there that it (God) still exists?

This too was explained by the triad of German Idealism. The unconditioned is an end unto itself.

This is a very old argument going back to St. Thomas, I believe, in the 1200’s. We can discuss this more but I don’t see it as being very logical at all.

It's actually probably older. But don't simply write it off for that reason. Some of the greatest philosophy comes out of the Dark Ages.

TheHammerSpeaks

06-13-2004, 08:58 PM

The Teleological Argument (or order in nature)

This argument equates the universe with a manmade design

1. Nature is an orderly affair. It conforms to pattern and is governed by law.
2. Nature cannot have ordered itself.
3. Order cannot happen by chance.
4. Therefore, the presence of order requires a designer or architect.
Also:

1. Everything has a purpose.
2. Things do not assign themselves purposes (as they have no intelligence).
3. Therefore, the presence of purpose requires a designer or architect.

Have I stated it correctly?
I had the second argument in mind. The first is known as the argument by design, which, when you get right down to it, is very similar to the cosmological argument.

Since all of your arguments deal with the argument by design, I cannot respond to them. It is of great importance to differentiate between order and purpose. While "order" implies a necessary teleological aim, "purpose" leaves room for either/or choices, not just necessary causes.

A. What leads us to believe that the house was built by an intelligent being? A person who lacks the knowledge required to design the house could have built it. He could copy another house that had been previously built.

First of all, the universe is not a house, and I am not aware of the existence of another one which could be used as an original for this copy. Second, surely some degree of intelligence is needed to make a copy. Third, the idea that this universe is a copy (who or what is doing the copying, you fail to explain) of another seems even more unlikely than the idea of it being the original. Lastly, can you show me a house that isn't built by an intelligent being, let alone a universe?
B. Why one God? Many different people can build the same house. Why not several Gods to build the universe?

It all goes back to Hegel equating the unconditioned with the Absolute. You have a keen mind and I am beginning to think you would like Hegel.

C. Why an immortal God? Couldn’t this God begin and cease to exist at some point.

See response above.

D. Why not a perfect anthropomorhite? Why can’t the God have corporeal eyes, etc?

See response above.
E. Why assume this world has a purpose, as a house does? It could be an imperfect world, with no purpose.

Well, if a house has purpose, and a hammer has purpose, and one runs through the list of everything of which the world consists and finds purpose in all of it, then the entire world, the sum total of its contents, must have purpose. I know for certain that houses and hammers have purpose, and you even said so yourself. So why don't you tell me what does not, with certainty, have purpose? You seem even more critical of induction than I am.

Please summerize the appropiate proof of Kierkegaard.
It is simply that existence must be presupposed if we want to know anything about a being - that existence must be the starting point. That goes for everything: God, the self, Napoleon, dreams, etc.

(Sorry can't get rid of the italics!)
No problem.