Can you prove that God exists?

you are not listening to me.

-your usage of the most important words in your statements appear wrong.
-you say that you are trying to open up my eyes to the possibility while i already said anything is possible.
-you can also explain to me now what you mean with universal. do you mean absolute?
-there is usually a logical process involved in feeling an ice cube but you dont seem to have the same definition of logic as me.using your example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

:::::::::::::::: the body moves through coordination of the owner, the body can touch matter
:::::::::::::::: i own a body
:::::::::::::::: therefore i can coordinate my body to touch matter (an ice cube for example of course).

the reason the processes are logical is because they are related to one another.



you cannot deny this now that you defined this as a logical process. when i was referring to the idea being accepted i was talking about your own. of course you would have to observe theological matters in a theological way if you would want it to be compatible, but without a reason to change my point of view to that i will not. that would be absurd. so if you cannot even agree about arguments needing to be logical for no reason, we can stop talking or would not even matter what is said.

venom_zx

 

The Father that Jesus speaks of in the New Testament is Jehovah. Jesus and the Father are one.

 

Nobody ever cares until they burn in the fires of hell for 10,000 years and then the fools realize, this is just the beginning of damnation. How shall they neglect so great a salvation?

 

when i look at the simultanious existence of entropy and our own selves (along with each of those wonders mentioned)
what is see is a very compelling suggestion that none of us knows all the answers, not a proof nor disproof of any
particular one of our collective or individual speculations

=^^=
.../\...

 

Hammer,

Your use of logic is not reasonable. It must be both to apply to reality.

And you are clearly confused as to the nature of science.
Deductive, not inductive.

Clever arguments, albeit unreasonable ones, are entertaining but useless. Do you really think denying the Reality of science and the power of observation somehow prove your nameless god?

Science is wrong, and so you are right? That's your argument?

Logical AND reasonable is what's required.

The concept of "Feeling cold" has a resonable meaning. To exclude it from your logical argument is to be unreasonable. Your logic has no real world application.

Cambell34,
I feel sorry for you.

themnax,
I agree. But how about a darker color for an old man to see?

 

Venom, would I be correct in assuming that you have never taken a philosophy course in your life? Because I really don't have the time to give you an introduction to the subject. But please read these links, and if you still want to discuss this topic afterwards, let me know:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/apriori.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/

And this one's for gecko, but I think you should read it too:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/ded-ind.htm

This is the very basics. If you have any questions, let me know.

 

Thank you for your kind words, Jatom. It's nice to be appreciated. And as a matter of fact, I'm going to try to get something published in a second-rate philosophy journal in the near future. If it's accepted, I'll be sure to inform you.

But now, let me get to your question. The fideists have always been greatly underrated, at least in my opinion. But without them, late 18th and 19th century German philosophy would look a lot different. Both Kant and Hamann were influenced by the fideists. And as we all know, Kant led to Hegel and Schopenhaur, and Hegel and Schopenhaur led to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. So while I am not seriously influenced by the fideists directly, any practitioner of continental philosophy can't help but see their ideas in the works of his favourite philosophers.

But is my philosophy a variety of fideism? If you take the definition of fideism in a text book way, then probably not. I think that science is certainly useful, just not in matters of theology. And I do not think that faith is a prerequisate for scientific exploration. But if you define fideism in a more loose way, that faith is essential to being a complete human being, then yes, you could say that I am a fideist.

 

Hammer,
Philosophy is an endless argument that contains it's own proof. It's meaningless in relation to Reality. All the arguments in the world cannot bring a non-existent god into being. You may fool the less educated, But I for one see the flaw in all your arguments.

"A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion."

So your site say's you blew it. The above describes your arguments, whereas...

"In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false."

...Describes a scientific argument. You don't understand your own argument. Fourtunetly, I've long since dispensed with trite philosophical nonesense. All your arguments fall flat in the face of facts.

You have made a fatal assumption: homo-centric faith- the unsubstantiated belief that opinions and cute arguments have a real and independent existence.

None of the things you say are relevant to the existence of a god- unless you're trying to make a back door admission that the existence of god is depedent on the existence of man?

 

Hey Hammer and hey everybody

You wrote:

All men are mortal.


Then you wrote what was next,
Socrate is a Man

and...

That's deductive? Okay


There is no place for creativity in a deduction. That's sad


"You are living in the Now, create dude"

There is also no place for what we ignore in a deduction. That's being closed and admitting we know.

And I would even add that since the beginning, people deduct things, but they are not objective, so the fact on which they base their deduction is sometimes pretty wrong.

even "All men are mortals" contains maybe mistakes
(I agree for the body of course)
and many could understand that simple sentence in a lot of different way (comparing that sentence to all what they know and believe)


Deduct is a way to make probalities are on your side, but I am not sure it always works.

It would be better to say that I am sure that the way the men deduct leads them to a pretty shitty situation.

You could tell me that you have to base it on universal truths; and reject others as being objective.
I would tell you that even define an universal truth is already defining a concept, and concept do not exist. It is just in our head.

There is one things I know:
Things are ( since I experienced them, or heard about them or seen them)

The rest is shit

What we gotta do is learn to perceive

 

I'm starting to wonder exactly what your level of education is. If you have a PhD in street smarts from the school of life, I'm not impressed.

Whereas what? Both of those quotes describe a deductive argument. It says so right in the quotes. I think you need to book your next optomatrist appointment, old man.

So, you're clearly still confused on the difference between deduction and induction. I already gave a few examples of deductive arguments, so now I'll give one of an inductive argument. Let's perform a scientific experiment, shall we? Using the scientific method:

I'm not sure that gravity exists, so I'll check to make sure. I'm holding a pencil. Now, I have released that pencil and, surprise surprise, it has fallen to the floor. Let me try that again. Hmm... interesting, it fell to the floor again. Once more to be sure... that settles it! I have witnessed the pencil fall to the floor three times now. I conclude that when a pencil is dropped near the surface of the earth, it will fall to the floor every single time!

That's an inductive argument. It's a form of logic so it contains a universal. Namely, "all pencils that are dropped near the surface of the earth will fall to the floor." The trouble is that I have no way of knowing with certainty whether the next time I drop a pencil it will fall to the floor. That's the problem of induction.

Dude, it's pretty obvious that you don't know the first thing about philosophy. So, you couldn't have dispensed with it if you never had any knowledge of it.

I'm getting there Gecky, take it easy; I thought patience was supposed to accompany old age. Why did I believe that? Because all old men I have known are patient. I made a universal out of it, and now you have proven that universal to be false. Induction at work! And no, I am not suggesting that God's existence is conditioned upon the existence of man.

 

Spirit, don't get me wrong, I can't stand deductive reasoning... or inductive for that matter. I'm just trying to get these guys to understand what it means because they are clearly in the dark. In fact, I completely agree with you. Philosophy is an art, it's also a game, but primarily, it's an art. And what's art without creativity? Boring, that's what. You want to know something interesting? Every attempt, ever, to reduce philosophy to a science, from logical positivism to phenomenology, has failed. But some people can only learn the hard way, I guess.

 

Sucks that my reply will be lost in all of these but

Most scientists and mathmaticians who work in the extremly complicate workings of the universe belive in a God just from the complexity of matter and how it is designed to support life.

 

Hammer- i was expecting a more direct reply from you hammer. very dodgy. you havent even summarized why you disagree. you should atleast be able to give a brief explanation. instead i have to listen to how i am not educated enough. so i really don't have any confidence in those sites being of any help and its by your own doing. i really dont have time to read the whole of those sites and i also dont know for what to look. if something there is of use to you then quote it.

themnax, i agree. to me it doesnt matter how low the entropy

 

If you disagree with me that logical processes lead to universals, and that universals do not qualify as undeniable knowledge, then we're not going to get anywhere.

I didn't mean that in derogatory way. I did for Gecko, but not for you. But am I right in assuming that you haven't taken any philosophy courses? If so, then I really can't blame you, now can I. Hence the links, a quick lesson.

I don't understand what you mean? Those sites are credible. You could site them in a paper if you wanted to, and no one would question it.

It's really not that much reading. You could get through it in a hour or two tops. And all of it is essential, so I can't quote selectively. I've already tried to tell you the difference between deduction and induction, a priori and a posterior, universal and particular. You didn't believe me. You wanted proof. Well, there it is in those links. If you don't want to learn anything, then why are you participating in the discussion in the first place?

 

its good that you've explained what you mean with universals. if universals are not necessarily completely universal as i understand you mean then there is no disagreement there. what i meant is you didnt give me any summary(you have now though). as you could see that summary cleared up things. alot simpler and straight to the point. now i could now reverse the order to check what if you really needed all that text in those pages but i wont do that. its not interesting.

 

No need to now I suppose. So great. We're on the same page now. So how do you know that any universal is entirely true? Doesn't the problem of induction prevent any real knowledge of universals? Can you really tell me that there are no round squares, floating around at some distant corner of the universe, with absolute certainty?

So what are we left with? Knowledge of particulars. Instead of saying, "All ice cubes are cold" we may say, "this ice cube is cold." And I can do it with absolute certainty that, to me at least, the ice cube is cold. And to me, I can see God in the world around me. But most of all, I see God in what I don't see, in the particulars I have not experienced.

When a particular contradicts a universal, the universal must be disgarded in favour of a more all-embracing universal. But there's no end to it. Each universal is based upon the same pre-suppositions as the last. There is only one way that we can claim to have knowledge of everything. It is by, paradoxically, claiming to have knowledge of nothing. All anomalies can thus be explained as acts of God, the only being possessing a paradoxical existence and essence.

Now, what are the benefits of this. First of all, it grants you the ability to see acts of God in the world around you. It makes you think that many events taking place in your life possess a quality of meaning. Consequently, you act more spontaineously, you trust your instincts more. Perhaps more importantly, it gives you (well, only Christians) a sense of responsibility, since Christ died for your sins. It causes you to experience a wide variety of emotion ranging from love to hate, from joy to sorrow, from guilt to faith. And you become more of a human being because of it. If you deprive yourself of such experiences, then I dare say you are only half a man.

I'm sure you have many questions and criticisms, and I look forward to them.

 

TheHammerSpeaks,


Thanks for the info, and I'll have take a more indepth look at the philosophers you've mention. Indeed, fideism (or aleast a 'strong(?)' form of fideism) is usually attacked in Christian theological/philosophical circles, athough the different 'degrees' of fideism are never distinguished e.g., "moderate," etc., so I'm especially interested in your view. Anyway, keep up the good work, and God bless!

P.S. Kant and Hume (problably among others I'm unfamiliar with) seemed to have influence on you? ...or at least in your current disscussion

 

geckopelli, I think you missed it here. In an deductive argument, the conclussion follows from the premises in such a way that conclussion cannot be false if the premises are indeed true. Take for example the classic categorical syllogism:

All man are mortal
Socrates is a Man
Therefore Socrates is Mortal

If the first two propositions (premises) are true, then the third proposition(conclussion) must be true.

That is, if it is true that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man, then one cannot logically deny that Socrates is mortal. Science, however, goes about buisness in a different way. In science, one may, for example, first affirm that Socrates is mortal, classify Socrates as a man, and from this conclude that all men are Mortal. But given the hypothetical above:

If the first two propostions (premises) are true, then the third propsition (conclussion) must be true.

this use of abductive(?) reasoning is fallacious (affirming the consequent) becuase it does not follow from the mortality of this one man, that all men or mortal; nevertheless, the conclussion can be true, but it only takes the discovery of one man who isn't mortal to dispove the argument. Welcome to the world of science (among other things).

 

Indeed it is. And I'm flirting with heresy enough that I don't need to go there. I'm a Catholic before I'm a philosopher, so my views have to conform to the dogma of the Catholic Church. Fortunately, the Church gives a lot of leeway in these matters, something a lot of people don't realise. Just look at the drastic differences between Franciscan and Dominican theology during the Scholastic period. I, personally, prefer the Franciscan view.

Hume is certainly a major influence of mine, not so much Kant, however. Kant was philosophy's first great systematiser. I have no intention of creating a philosophical system, I'm working on a philosophical method (in the loosest sense of the word) but I want to avoid a system because they are inherently limitting. When dealing with theology, limitting God is the biggest mistake you can make. But I can certainly see why you thought Kant was an influence of mine. My last post gave off a phenomena/noumena vibe.

In fact, one of my other influences is Hamann, greatly underappreciated today, unfortunately. Most people have never heard the name. But if you want to read the best critique of Kant ever, even better than Fichte's, read Hamann's Metacritique. He hints at the same things Derrida deals with, but Hamann does it way back in the 18th century.

God bless.

 

Nope! But, I believe. That's enough for me.