4
   

Do you believe in God?

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 06:07 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;97853 wrote:
I agree with your intelligent design approach. It's a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. To have complexity there is a need for complex origin.

However I stop short here at trying to go any further with defining what such a creator may be. Everything is speculation.

You are smart, when looking at a wall, as our complete ignorance on the subject of God is, to say what you see, and not what lies beyond... I always go with those who saying we were made by Promethius, that we have the ability to see the future, but lose it when we hope against hope... God as we know God is the triumph of hope over reality... If the question is: How shall we behave if created one and all by a loving, caring God; then the answer is obvious... If the goal is to make God so distant that we can no longer perceive his/her intentions, then that too is possible... If we wish to deny God, then we have always had that power, but the ground is no more firm there than anywhere... We have no leverage...If we try to move our ignorance to clear our field of vision we only move ourselves... The whole subject is crazy, stupid, and dead... There is nothing to eat and drink there... So, we must find an excuse to consider others as children of God and fellow human beings without proof... Their lives depend upon it, and so do our own...The question is never, what is God, but what does God mean... God's meaning is both beautiful, and dangerous...We get each with the other...If you accept God you get all the nuts who use God to enslave their fellow human beings and to deny them their rights...It is just crazy...
0 Replies
 
Majic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 10:37 am
@Pythagorean,
Why does everyone assume there are only two choices - there is a God, or there isn't a God? Why can't there be a third choice (or more choices for that matter)?
My research suggest there is no controlling god, out there. No one who provides favors and/or punishments when prayed to. However, I firmly believe that we are more than just physical bodies. We are all life-energies occupying a physical body to experience. Collectively, all of our life-energies, or souls, created this world we live in. Individually we create our own life and are 100% responsible for all that happens to the body. Collectively, we have created our universe. There is no god to pray to or worship. We, collectively, are the god people refer to.
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Oct, 2009 10:39 pm
@gojo1978,
gojo1978;97855 wrote:
Yes, there is.


"The big guy must have done it" is not complex. It's an incredibly simplified, anachronistic, unenlightened way of thinking about things which, let us never forget, originated thousands of years ago when science was less than a dot on the horizon.


That doesn't dismiss the possibility of a rational argument for the existence of a grand designer. What we lack is the understanding of what such a being means. Omniscient and omnipotent are just quaint words, until someone can provide a rational explanation as to where and how and why such a being came to be, or whether such a being was eternal.

These questions I have resolved through my own reasoning. So it would be an assumption on someone else's part (speaking from my viewpoint) to assume the thinking only relfects past superstitions, etc. Someday I'll post my rational explanation for what I think this 'being ... creator' is, and why ... the explanation is not just a rehash of past thinking, philosophical, religious, or otherwise; and I think it amounts to an airtight philosophical argument. It's in answer to Immanuel Kant's challenge to speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to the level of a science. That however, needs some explanation as well. What did Kant mean by a 'science of metaphysics.'

Pure reason can answer questions that go beyond physics, in this regard. That's where I'm coming from ... not from a religious position.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 04:14 am
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;98025 wrote:
That doesn't dismiss the possibility of a rational argument for the existence of a grand designer. What we lack is the understanding of what such a being means. Omniscient and omnipotent are just quaint words, until someone can provide a rational explanation as to where and how and why such a being came to be, or whether such a being was eternal.

These questions I have resolved through my own reasoning. So it would be an assumption on someone else's part (speaking from my viewpoint) to assume the thinking only relfects past superstitions, etc. Someday I'll post my rational explanation for what I think this 'being ... creator' is, and why ... the explanation is not just a rehash of past thinking, philosophical, religious, or otherwise; and I think it amounts to an airtight philosophical argument. It's in answer to Immanuel Kant's challenge to speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to the level of a science. That however, needs some explanation as well. What did Kant mean by a 'science of metaphysics.'

Pure reason can answer questions that go beyond physics, in this regard. That's where I'm coming from ... not from a religious position.



I would like to hear more about your theory. Not because I am looking for some almighty replacement, but because my mind is always open to speculation.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 06:39 am
@Pythagorean,
An open mind is like a pickup truck in the city...People will always take the opportunity to fill it with garbage...
gojo1978
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 07:05 am
@Fido,
Fido;98055 wrote:
An open mind is like a pickup truck in the city...People will always take the opportunity to fill it with garbage...


Just to clarify: garbage = god or Darwin?
0 Replies
 
gojo1978
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:46 am
@Majic,
Majic;97910 wrote:
We are all life-energies occupying a physical body to experience. Collectively, all of our life-energies, or souls, created this world we live in.


The earth was hundreds of millions of years old before even the most basic single-cell lifeforms emerged.
0 Replies
 
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 12:46 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;98050 wrote:
I would like to hear more about your theory. Not because I am looking for some almighty replacement, but because my mind is always open to speculation.


Immanuel Kant offered a challenge in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Prolegomena" for speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to what he called a 'science of metaphysics.' My own interpretation of what Kant meant by a science was a system of reasoning (a priori -or pure, in the sense that the judgments that would comprise such a science would not be derived from experience, but from reason alone). I could give you an example, but when I have the time I'll post my answer to Kant. It's called "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." It's a self-contained theory (but my viewpoint which may be considered biased, being the author, is that it does present the one and only possible solution to the question of the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, or consciousness).

Kant also speaks about a synthesis of pure understanding in his critical philosophy. There are an abundance of Kantian speculations as well in both the works mentioned above. Kant provided both direction and clues to what I've formulated, not just by following his direction and his clues, but by thinking through the system. It's a necessary, straightforward line of reasoning. My argument will be that it satisfies Kant's critical demands. It will be for others to show where this is not so, if it's possible. I'm open to criticism, but my argument will be that the argument as a whole, is infallible --strong words, huh!

When I post the argument the thread will be titled: "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." And I'll make reference to Kant in the argument, as well as Hegel, and Hume. The argument also necessitates that the universe did begin with a singularity, and the big bang did happen; although it only supports it by way of a pure philosophical argument; not through bringing up the scientific evidence in support of the big bang. It also supports what science has been able to discover about the past history of the earth and the progression towards higher life forms.

The argument consists of four a priori principles (philosophers can argue whether indeed they are a priori -I simply claim that they are, according to Kant's definition of a priori) ... the Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. All the principles follow necessarily, one from the other and the premise of the argument follows to the final conclusion, necessarily. There is no guess work, only a general philosophical theory, that's the equivalent to a mathematical theory --only here there is no use of numbers, there are only four principles derived from pure reason.
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 08:13 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;98153 wrote:
Immanuel Kant offered a challenge in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Prolegomena" for speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to what he called a 'science of metaphysics.' My own interpretation of what Kant meant by a science was a system of reasoning (a priori -or pure, in the sense that the judgments that would comprise such a science would not be derived from experience, but from reason alone). I could give you an example, but when I have the time I'll post my answer to Kant. It's called "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." It's a self-contained theory (but my viewpoint which may be considered biased, being the author, is that it does present the one and only possible solution to the question of the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, or consciousness).

Kant also speaks about a synthesis of pure understanding in his critical philosophy. There are an abundance of Kantian speculations as well in both the works mentioned above. Kant provided both direction and clues to what I've formulated, not just by following his direction and his clues, but by thinking through the system. It's a necessary, straightforward line of reasoning. My argument will be that it satisfies Kant's critical demands. It will be for others to show where this is not so, if it's possible. I'm open to criticism, but my argument will be that the argument as a whole, is infallible --strong words, huh!

When I post the argument the thread will be titled: "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." And I'll make reference to Kant in the argument, as well as Hegel, and Hume. The argument also necessitates that the universe did begin with a singularity, and the big bang did happen; although it only supports it by way of a pure philosophical argument; not through bringing up the scientific evidence in support of the big bang. It also supports what science has been able to discover about the past history of the earth and the progression towards higher life forms.

The argument consists of four a priori principles (philosophers can argue whether indeed they are a priori -I simply claim that they are, according to Kant's definition of a priori) ... the Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. All the principles follow necessarily, one from the other and the premise of the argument follows to the final conclusion, necessarily. There is no guess work, only a general philosophical theory, that's the equivalent to a mathematical theory --only here there is no use of numbers, there are only four principles derived from pure reason.



Have you already stated that this is purely your thesis, or is this also found in some already established group?

And please make sure that I am able to follow up on your work here because I am extremely interested in seeing what you have come up with. Please also take time to visit my blog and see how my line of thinking falls into place with your yours or where you may have advice against.
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:03 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;98207 wrote:
Have you already stated that this is purely your thesis, or is this also found in some already established group?

And please make sure that I am able to follow up on your work here because I am extremely interested in seeing what you have come up with. Please also take time to visit my blog and see how my line of thinking falls into place with your yours or where you may have advice against.


This is an original theory ... some years ago a philosophy professor or two made comments on similarities with my argument and other philosophers, at least with respect to the premise. Hegel is the only one who began with a similar premise, or at least, one closely related. But no one has actually formulated any a priori principles in answer to Kant's challenge. One philosophy professor stated that my science worked, but he couldn't see how the premise led to the conclusion. That was 15 years ago. I've since made it quite clear how the premise leads to the conclusion, necessarily.

I'll search for your blog.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:15 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;98153 wrote:
Immanuel Kant offered a challenge in his "Critique of Pure Reason," and his "Prolegomena" for speculative philosophers to raise metaphysics to what he called a 'science of metaphysics.' My own interpretation of what Kant meant by a science was a system of reasoning (a priori -or pure, in the sense that the judgments that would comprise such a science would not be derived from experience, but from reason alone). I could give you an example, but when I have the time I'll post my answer to Kant. It's called "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." It's a self-contained theory (but my viewpoint which may be considered biased, being the author, is that it does present the one and only possible solution to the question of the origin of spacetime, matter, and mind, or consciousness).

Kant also speaks about a synthesis of pure understanding in his critical philosophy. There are an abundance of Kantian speculations as well in both the works mentioned above. Kant provided both direction and clues to what I've formulated, not just by following his direction and his clues, but by thinking through the system. It's a necessary, straightforward line of reasoning. My argument will be that it satisfies Kant's critical demands. It will be for others to show where this is not so, if it's possible. I'm open to criticism, but my argument will be that the argument as a whole, is infallible --strong words, huh!

When I post the argument the thread will be titled: "Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being." And I'll make reference to Kant in the argument, as well as Hegel, and Hume. The argument also necessitates that the universe did begin with a singularity, and the big bang did happen; although it only supports it by way of a pure philosophical argument; not through bringing up the scientific evidence in support of the big bang. It also supports what science has been able to discover about the past history of the earth and the progression towards higher life forms.

The argument consists of four a priori principles (philosophers can argue whether indeed they are a priori -I simply claim that they are, according to Kant's definition of a priori) ... the Causal Principle, the Principle of Divergence, the Principle of Equal Relation, and the Principle of Progressive Design. All the principles follow necessarily, one from the other and the premise of the argument follows to the final conclusion, necessarily. There is no guess work, only a general philosophical theory, that's the equivalent to a mathematical theory --only here there is no use of numbers, there are only four principles derived from pure reason.

The principal of conservation, or identity, seem an a'priori... We accept it on its face, and we know it before we can reason it true...
D bowden
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:41 pm
@Pythagorean,
I've never had any proof that God doesn't exist. Infact I've never been told what God is. only what it's not... God is not in time, not material, not limited in power or goodness or knowledge. It seems God is NOT a lot of things but IS nothing. Surely we can't claim to know what something is simply by knowing what it is not?

Also in what way would smelling, tasting, seeing, hearing or touching God be any more proof than imagining God? If all these things are thought and thought is real then what makes one thought more valid than another?
0 Replies
 
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:53 pm
@Fido,
Fido;98225 wrote:
The principal of conservation, or identity, seem an a'priori... We accept it on its face, and we know it before we can reason it true...


This is what I understand by a priori. It's a judgment/proposition/principle that we reason out not by observation/experience, but by thinking it first, then seeing how and whether it applies ... like the principles of geometry. That's why Kant spoke of geometry as an example for metaphysicians to follow, in method.
0 Replies
 
skeptic griggsy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 04:50 pm
@Pythagorean,
Gojo1978, amen, amen and indeed! As an ignostic, I find that He lacks meaning in that His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, and even the arguments for Him reflect that lack.:eek:
So, how could there even be evidence for Him?:detective:
God is crying that He can neither think nor act as being disembodied ,He has no brain and thus no mind. Isn't theology wonderful? I think that Prof. Irwin Corey makes more sense than theologians!:poke-eye:
D bowden
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 06:33 pm
@skeptic griggsy,
skeptic griggsy;98866 wrote:
Gojo1978, amen, amen and indeed! As an ignostic, I find that He lacks meaning in that His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, and even the arguments for Him reflect that lack.:eek:
So, how could there even be evidence for Him?:detective:
God is crying that He can neither think nor act as being disembodied ,He has no brain and thus no mind. Isn't theology wonderful? I think that Prof. Irwin Corey makes more sense than theologians!:poke-eye:


You have to have a brain to have a mind? I thought they were seperate and the mind is immaterial.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 06:50 pm
@D bowden,
D_bowden;98881 wrote:
You have to have a brain to have a mind? I thought they were seperate and the mind is immaterial.


But, isn't that something to be investigated, and not just assumed? Couldn't the brain and the mind be identical?
0 Replies
 
Johnny Fresh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 06:58 pm
@Pythagorean,
If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something, you see.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.
gojo1978
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 06:59 pm
@D bowden,
D_bowden;98881 wrote:
You have to have a brain to have a mind? I thought they were seperate and the mind is immaterial.


That's a bit old school, is it not?

Prevailing philosophical wisdom tends not to see it that way.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 07:03 pm
@Johnny Fresh,
Johnny Fresh;98885 wrote:
If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something, you see.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.



But what, if like the philosopher, David Hume, I am skeptical about whether it is true that everything must come from something, even if it is true that everything does come from something. And we do not know that either one is true.

---------- Post added 10-20-2009 at 09:06 PM ----------

gojo1978;98886 wrote:
That's a bit old school, is it not?

Prevailing philosophical wisdom tends not to see it that way.


But, what is "old school" may still be true, and what is prevailing philosophical wisdom need not be true (even it it is prevailing).
D bowden
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Oct, 2009 08:55 pm
@kennethamy,
If the Brain and Mind are one then when you die surely the Mind must die with the Brain?

Who cares i God exists if you don't have a mind to appreciate it when you are dead?

Old school it must be... my days in appreciating Philosophy are young so the works of Descartes and Socrates are the only i have read. I will move on soon enough though.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/22/2024 at 05:40:35