Arguments for the existence of God

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Balder1, Oct 31, 2004.

  1. whitewolf asleep under the juniper bush Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    Ah, honey to my mind! It follows, "perfection" as a concept is perfect; once it is materialized, it is no longer perfect (words may escape me, but it's a paradox which is obvious). Thus, god is perfect as long as he doesn't exist; that is how he can manage being limitless. But once you start scrupulously defining him, you're taking his perfection away.
    We must compare the theory to true experience. Are we happier with god or without him? I say, without god we're much happier and more free.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    whitewolf,

    Actually, you are talking about form and matter. It is a concept spoken of in metaphysics. In metaphysics, there are two modes of reality, form and matter. Form is said to be perfect, and unchanging. Matter, however, is said to be imperfect, and ever-changing. Angels and demons are said to be pure form, and hence, unchanging (though some may argue about demons being perfect... but I suppose that would have to do more with moral perfection). However, unlike what you believe, form and concept are not identical realities, though form is conceptual. In other words, angels and demons are not simply concepts, but realities. Likewise, God is said to be form, as opposed to matter. God, however, unlike demons and angels, is infinite, supreme, and hence, most perfect. That is, most complete, total, whole, for what can be more complete than that which is actually infinite?

    In saying, "God is perfect as long as He doesn't exist," I assume that you believe that existence consists of the universe. As such, all existence therefore is material (except perhaps energy... but according to einstein energy and matter are the same things simply moving at different speeds). Hence, by such logic, it would make sense that for God to exist would imply imperfection, since, metaphysically speaking, matter is imperfect. However, if one is to say that God is infinite, it may not necessarily be that for God to exist means that God is material, and therefore imperfect. If Form exists as a reality, then God may be said to be an existing entity, and still retain supreme perfection and an infinite being.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. whitewolf asleep under the juniper bush Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    Matter has form. What you say sounds unfamiliar. Further explain, refer to a text, or give it up.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. beyondtimeandspace Everlasting Student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
  8. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Joy. Now we come to it. Epistemology and Aristotle.
    You realize that these are just conventions.
    And that demons and angels aren't real.
    And neither is god.
    At the least they haven't been proven to exist in form or matter or any other way.
    They're stories and ideas. No more.
     
  9. whitewolf asleep under the juniper bush Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    Full proof? As fellow atheist, I understand you. But, proof.... And please do better than merely saying "Well, we can't see them."
     
  10. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    God is a living wind but you cannot say from where the wind originates or where it will go too. But you are carried on it. Trust me you have sustainence through it.

    peace

    c20
     
  11. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I really don't care to argue the existence of God. I'm afraid this is a topic that bores me. I only came in earlier because of your words on perfection.

    All I'm saying here is that it is annoying when people start talking about angels and demons as if they have accepted traits that can be discussed. I'm not going to attempt to prove that angels and demons don't exist because I don't care, but don't you think that if someone goes around talking about them as if they are categorizable and defined in any way then they should show proof of how they know that these entities exist for one and have said properties for two?

    That's all I'm saying.
     
  12. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Likewise for somehone who goes around talking about them as if they don't exist.
     
  13. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Uh. Yeah. That's my point. Do you see me talking about their form? What kind of matter they're made of? Or anything like that?

    No.

    So shutup.
     
  14. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    You're the one who brought up angels and demons not me. Says a lot.
     
  15. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Oh? Really?

    And what does that say? That you're a thread-flirting asshole?
    I don't blame you. This is the kind of thread where you can't really be expected to read all the half-ass apologist crap anyway, but this used to be your bailiwick.

    How's that search for your lost faith coming? Still going to hell?
     
  16. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    To get back to the point....

    Balder1: you seem to be looking for a decent argument for the existence of God (sic). If that's the case, you won't find one.
     
  17. Balder1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    290
    Could you quickly refute the cosmological argument that I brought up, then?
     
  18. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    This one is rife with errors. To begin, lets play semantics with 'dependant'. If one interprets this to mean that no organism can possibly survive without relying on other organisms then premiss one is dead in the water. It's impossible for an organism to be completely self-sufficient (I'm assuming here that by 'everything' you meant to excluse inanimate objects). If you roll with the 'self-caused' interpretation,well, that's clearly toast; nothing comes ex nihilo, all life is spawned. Second premiss: this is to be taken a priori?? There is no recorded case of anyhting in human history that could be recognized as being not dependent. Waxing metaphysical here for a moment, let's assume such a thing did exist. Would it make sense to say that such a thing could even be recognized as such? Conclusion: Even if one were to make this jump, why would one move to posit that this thing is God??
    Overall, the logic is sound ( A or B, B, therefore B [I wasn't about to mess around with the quantifiers]) but muuch too open to interpretation, and, the instantiation in the conclusion is seriously questionable.
     
  19. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    First of all, this is is a non sequitur. The idea of a thing and the thing itself are not the same; if they would/could be, we would not distinguish between the two of them anyway. The idea of a thing is phenomenologically different from the thing itself, and as such, the two are incomparable. Ie. we can't say that one is perfect and the other one isn't, in comparison to the first.


    Secondly,

    "a thing that exists is imperfect"

    You need to look at existence's "imperfection" up close: Existence may be imperfect *in a certain individual time point*, but existence *as a whole*, *in all the time and space of its being* is perfect.

    It is all a matter of perspective: from a short-term perspective, existence is imperfect, from an all-term perspective, existence is perfect.

    What your argument introduces is a clash of perspectives in which we observe something.


    * * *

    What is not "just a convention"?


    I dare you to prove you have two legs!

    I can prove that you don't have two legs.

    You know, eventually, I could come to you, hear you claim you have two legs, you pointing at them -- then I'd take a chainsaw and saw one leg off and you wouldn't have two legs. And I would prove that you don't have two legs. Q.E.D.

    It is impossible to prove anything unless there is a common standard we both agree to. What you are doing is that you in advance discard any possibility of a proof for God -- you take a chainsaw and actively prevent that anyone could prove they have two legs.
    Of course, this is the strategy with which you are always proven to be right ...
     
  20. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Rosa,

    So, you're saying that you can't compare blueprints with the finished building? That would sure throw a monkeywrench into the construction industry if this were the case.

    I admit that the thing and the idea of a thing are different, but they are close enough to be compared. In most cases, if you look in the idea of a thing you will find the thing buried amidst all the other possible means of expression of the idea. And, if you look at the thing you will find the idea of the thing. Even though it is a pale sampling of the full scope of the original idea. It is a limited expression of a limitless idea.

    Death. Gravity. Sex.

    Look. It's quite simple. Maybe I can't prove that I have two legs to you. Maybe you can prove that I don't have two legs. But, the point is that you have seen legs. You know what legs are. You know what properties legs have. You and I can sit here and discuss legs and their properties. But, angels and demons are another matter (you might notice that I have been avoiding the subject of god. And I wouldn't even bother to reply to this if the forums weren't extremely boring at the moment.)

    Have you seen demons, Rosa? Do you agree on the properties that BeyondTimeAndSpace has attributed to them? If so, then you and he can have a wonderful conversation on these beings of which you both accept the stated definition. I don't. I won't. Simple as that.

    And, how exactly does one prove the existence of god by simply attributing arbitrary properties to things that one has never seen or examined? This is called fantasy.
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    The fool says in his heart that God does not exist. The definition of God is that He is a being than which no greater can be concieved. Since the fool understands the words which define God, God must exist in the mind.
    For the fool to say that God (a being than which no greater can be concieved) does not exist, he is saying that that being is only an idea and therefore cannot exist in mind or reality, even though God does exist in his mind.
    For (the defined) God to exist in the mind alone, is actually not God as defined (a being than which no greater can be concieved), but is actually a being than which greater CAN be concieved, which is totally impossible.
    So as God (as defined) cannot possibly exist in the mind alone (as it is self contradictory), He must exist both in mind and reality.
    Therefore God does exist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jan Ardena.
     
  22. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    I would go one step further with that word God.
    That Word was made flesh. His name was Jesus. The miracles He did were at that Word's command to show that He was indeed The Word made flesh

    peace

    c20
     
  23. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Yes, but this comparison is not a matter of course, even though it may seem so. That comparison is possible only because we function on the basis of some principles and standards that make such comparisons possible.

    A child may be very able to compare two houses; but it won't be able to compare a house and its blueprint. It takes certain knowledge to make comparisons.

    This knowledge is not to be taken for granted.


    A "limitless idea"?! Oh. [And he dares to speak about the non-existence of angels and demons!] How can you talk about properties of things that you ... can't touch, measure, see (not really, not clearly)?


    1. Death: It really isn't medically clear when someone is dead or not. Ie. in cases of severe trauma and coma, for example, it is quite unclear whether someone is to be thought dead or not. It's a convention.
    2. Gravity: Give me a break. Until they made defintions and equations, describing a certain phenomenon, nobody cared about "gravity". It's a convention.
    3. Sex: What about sex is not convention in some way or another?

    The thing is that *anything* can be treated as a matter of convention; a thing cannot prevent from being treated as a convention.

    I think I know where you're headed: Things are. If they are, this means they aren't about conventions. But this is so general that it says absolutely nothing; such a definition is applicable for *everything*.


    NO. My case was: "I dare you to prove you have two legs!" Two legs.


    It is all a matter of what you are *prepared* to believe.


    Oh merciful mother of all goose-skins! We thank you that Mr Invert Nexus has stepped off his throne and bothered to reply in this forum!


    I'm sure a discussion with beyondtimeandspace over a cup of tea would be absolutely charming! Certainly incomparably nicer than with you.


    Then what the hell are you doing here, talking about them?!


    Uh. You have in advance decided that God cannot be known, so no argument, nothing could convince you.
    It is this decision you have made in advance that is the same as deciding to saw off someone's legs, just to prove their claim of having two legs to be wrong.
     

Share This Page