4
   

Do you believe in God?

 
 
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 11:55 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99624 wrote:
It is logically impossible to derive a contingent, a posteriori, conclusion from necessary a priori premises. Kant's repudiation of the ontological argument was based on this truth.


Read the argument first, then decided whether or not your understanding of Kant is correct on this point.

There are a multitude of quotes I can search out in Kant's critical philosophy that will show that Kant is not altogether black and white on his thinking here. My understanding is not confined here to just what Kant had to say in one section ... he's complicated ... and he appears to (but he doesn't really) switch his thinking around in an apparent reverse directions.

When it comes to what he demands for a science of metaphysics, his demand requires that an a priori proof be objectively valid, and it would have a posteriori proof only if it could tell us why our universe is the way it is, and if by that, we are afforded a practical/beneficial way of looking at existence.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 04:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99607 wrote:
Fido;99602 wrote:



That may be true of the primitive mind, but no one I know confuses the name with the thing. The word, "cat" is not a cat. Everyone knows that.

I did not say that evidence for something need be proof that the something exists. But it is evidence which is needed in order to prove. Without evidence, there is no proof. Just as running a race is not winning a race, but there is no winning a race without running a race.


It is a matter of identity which is the first principal of all reasoning... If some one asks you to let the cat out, and you are owned by a cat, you don't ask what cat... This cat is that cat...A cat means any and every cat...If each and every one does not fit the definition of cat, then those are not cats, and are wrongly classified, or the classification must be expanded to include them, which is to say that every example tests the concept...

Consider Schopenhaur, and his statement that the world is my idea...We do not see the world as it is, but through the medium of ideas...With recognition, we do not know the thing because the simplest thing is too complex to be known... Rather, we know our idea of the thing and recognize it in our reality...What we do is define, and classify our reality by its parts...That is philosophy... Philosophy is finding true definitions...How can we say that the defined word is not the thing defined... That is as close as it ever gets...


Evidence suggests a conclusion, but proof may be reproduced at will...Proof is the result of experiment proving a hypothesis correct... With God we have a hypothesis in need of a test...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 04:23 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;99630 wrote:
Read the argument first, then decided whether or not your understanding of Kant is correct on this point.

There are a multitude of quotes I can search out in Kant's critical philosophy that will show that Kant is not altogether black and white on his thinking here. My understanding is not confined here to just what Kant had to say in one section ... he's complicated ... and he appears to (but he doesn't really) switch his thinking around in an apparent reverse directions.

When it comes to what he demands for a science of metaphysics, his demand requires that an a priori proof be objectively valid, and it would have a posteriori proof only if it could tell us why our universe is the way it is, and if by that, we are afforded a practical/beneficial way of looking at existence.


As I said, it is fallacious to derive necessary conclusions from contingent premises (or conversely). It is easy to show that on a truth-table. Now, since any existence proposition is contingent, the premises of an argument that has an existence conclusion (e.g. God exists) must also be contingent. But the ontological argument contains necessary truth as premises. Therefore, the ontological argument is fallacious.
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 05:17 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99665 wrote:
As I said, it is fallacious to derive necessary conclusions from contingent premises (or conversely). It is easy to show that on a truth-table. Now, since any existence proposition is contingent, the premises of an argument that has an existence conclusion (e.g. God exists) must also be contingent. But the ontological argument contains necessary truth as premises. Therefore, the ontological argument is fallacious.


Actually, I agree that the ontological argument is fallacious.

My "causal argument" is not the same thing as the ontological argument, however. With my premise, I have ruled out the existence of God to begin with. It becomes a matter of defining the premise for all that it is, and all that it implies ... what comes out of defining the premise is the argument I have formulated, and it follows a necessary line of reasoning. Just as Kant demanded must be the case, for a science of metaphysics. There is no room for postulating a host of different possibilities or proofs. The argument follows a consistently strict line of reasoning allowing for no alternative course of reasoning. Further, there is no justifiable comparison with this argument that I've posted on a separate thread, and any other argument in the whole field of philosophy or theology ... the closest anyone comes to offering the same premise is Hegel in his 'Science of Logic,' and I've quoted Hegel in the argument where this is concerned.

The argument can be made for my argument, that I've taken God out of the picture with the premise. The question is: How does God come back into the argument with the conclusion? To understand how, one needs to grasp the argument. Once the argument is grasped, the definition the argument provides for God is clarified, and this should provide grounds for either attacking or defending the argument. If you read it, and grasp it, then tell me where the thinking is wrong. This is a challenge for you and everyone else.

Where I stand is quite clear. But I'm not interesting really in defending my argument. I think it can stand on its own. What I'm interested in is finding out what kind of debate the argument can inspire among forum members. I think the argument is strictly a philosophical one, and a good one philosophically speaking; otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it on this forum. It also has the capacity to clarify the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and that's also, I think, a worthwhile cause.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 05:21 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;99675 wrote:
Actually, I agree that the ontological argument is fallacious.


If you mean Anselms' supposed ontological argument, according to Catholic monk Father Merton, it is not an ontological argument, much less an argument at all; instead, it is a definition expressed in typical Scholastic fashion.

(Thanks, Ken, for the correction on my foggy memory)
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 05:54 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;99675 wrote:
Actually, I agree that the ontological argument is fallacious.

My "causal argument" is not the same thing as the ontological argument, however. With my premise, I have ruled out the existence of God to begin with. It becomes a matter of defining the premise for all that it is, and all that it implies ... what comes out of defining the premise is the argument I have formulated, and it follows a necessary line of reasoning.with this argument that I've posted on a separate thread, and any other argument in the whole field of philosophy or theology ... the closest anyone comes to offering the same premise is Hegel in his 'Science of Logic,' and I've quoted Hegel in the argument where this is concerned.

The argument can be made for my argument, that I've taken God out of the picture with the premise. The question is: How does God come back into the argument with the conclusion?



so when are you going to post the next thread to continue your argument?
im dying of anticipation already...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 05:56 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;99676 wrote:
If you mean Aquinas' supposed ontological argument, according to Catholic monk Father Merton, it is not an ontological argument, much less an argument at all; instead, it is a definition expressed in typical Scholastic fashion.


I think what is meant is Anselm's argument.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 06:16 pm
@Pythagorean,
Shostakovich wrote:
Where I stand is quite clear. But I'm not interesting really in defending my argument. I think it can stand on its own.


Why write and post an argument if you are not willing to stand to defend it? If there's any place to defend it, this is it; you're going to have critically thinking minds picking it apart, and if you choose to just concede, "I think it can stand on its own", you may miss out on fatal flaws realized by others within your reasoning.
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 08:55 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;99679 wrote:
Why write and post an argument if you are not willing to stand to defend it? If there's any place to defend it, this is it; you're going to have critically thinking minds picking it apart, and if you choose to just concede, "I think it can stand on its own", you may miss out on fatal flaws realized by others within your reasoning.


I said I'm not really interested in defending it; because I don't think I will have to. What I mean is, the argument is sound; and what I may have to do if there is criticism, is explain how the cricisim is overcome by the argument. Obviously, I understand the argument fully. It's a difficult conceptual system but it is fulproof. I expect any criticism will come mainly from an inability on the reader's part to comprehend the argument fully; so I think most of my time will be spent clarifying the argument, as opposed to defending it.

If I do have to defend it from a legitimate criticism from someone who fully understands the argument, then of course, I'm prepared to defend it.

---------- Post added 10-24-2009 at 08:01 PM ----------

salima;99677 wrote:
so when are you going to post the next thread to continue your argument?
im dying of anticipation already...


Have you read the argument up to where I've written 'Further Points for Consideration?'

I will be typing out that part, but something happened when I logged onto the thread. I wasn't getting the 'edit' part so I didn't write it out. Don't know what happened.

There are certain predictions that follow from the argument. The predictions, if they do not materialize, will disqualify/disprove the theory/model. If the predictions are realized, then the empirical evidence for the argument is given. The predictions are far-reaching and they have obvious theological implications.
salima
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 12:19 am
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;99692 wrote:

Have you read the argument up to where I've written 'Further Points for Consideration?'

I will be typing out that part, but something happened when I logged onto the thread. I wasn't getting the 'edit' part so I didn't write it out. Don't know what happened.

There are certain predictions that follow from the argument. The predictions, if they do not materialize, will disqualify/disprove the theory/model. If the predictions are realized, then the empirical evidence for the argument is given. The predictions are far-reaching and they have obvious theological implications.


i read the first thread you posted as the introduction, and it gave me the impression you will be opening three more new threads for different parts of the argument. i am probably not too good on comprehension, since from what you are saying here you must have been planning to continue on in the same thread, which i subscribed to....but i didnt get any further notifications yet. i am pretty sure the part i read ended with 'further points for consideration'...

sorry, guess i forgot to subscribe...i see you added a lot to it. going back to read it now.
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:11 pm
@salima,
salima;99704 wrote:
i read the first thread you posted as the introduction, and it gave me the impression you will be opening three more new threads for different parts of the argument. i am probably not too good on comprehension, since from what you are saying here you must have been planning to continue on in the same thread, which i subscribed to....but i didnt get any further notifications yet. i am pretty sure the part i read ended with 'further points for consideration'...

sorry, guess i forgot to subscribe...i see you added a lot to it. going back to read it now.


Jgweed has put the threads together to keep them consistent. So the whole argument will be found in "Causal Argument introduction" but it's no longer just the introduction.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:32 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;99676 wrote:
If you mean Anselms' supposed ontological argument, according to Catholic monk Father Merton, it is not an ontological argument, much less an argument at all; instead, it is a definition expressed in typical Scholastic fashion.

(Thanks, Ken, for the correction on my foggy memory)


You are welcome. But, I don't see why you don't think it is an argument. One of its premises is what might be called a "definition", although not what we ordinarily call a "definition"*. But, it has at least another premise, and its conclusion is that God exists. So I don't see why it is not an argument, since it has premises and a conclusion.

*It is what used to be called a "real definition" which is not a definition of a word, but a definition of a thing. In this case, the thing is God.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 03:44 am
@kennethamy,
First, you might take time to notice that I did not say a word about my belief about Anselm's work; instead, I made mention of a particular Catholic monk's thought on the matter.

Instead of arguing that God exists, Anselm is arguing that if a person properly understands the notion that God exists, said person must conclude that God does indeed exist - to understand the claim "God exists" and to simultaneously reject God's existence is inconsistent by definition. So, there is an argument involved (as is the case with any meaningful declarative statement), but the argument is not an a priori argument to establish God's existence.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 06:32 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;99791 wrote:
First, you might take time to notice that I did not say a word about my belief about Anselm's work; instead, I made mention of a particular Catholic monk's thought on the matter.

Instead of arguing that God exists, Anselm is arguing that if a person properly understands the notion that God exists, said person must conclude that God does indeed exist - to understand the claim "God exists" and to simultaneously reject God's existence is inconsistent by definition. So, there is an argument involved (as is the case with any meaningful declarative statement), but the argument is not an a priori argument to establish God's existence.


It is not inconsistent to define God as a being no greater than whom can be conceived, and then to deny that God exists. After the definition as the first premise, we still require other premises to reach the conclusion that God exists. For example, that existence is a perfection (or property). So, from the definition alone, nothing follows about the existence of God.

But, even suppose it immediately did follow that God exists from the definition, as you say, that is still an argument. And argument with only one premise, and the conclusion (God exists). That kind of argument is called an "immediate inference". It is true that if the ontological argument is valid, then the premise (the definition) and the negation of conclusion (that God exists) cannot be asserted simultaneously on pain of contradiction. But that is true of every valid argument: that the premises and the negation of the conclusion cannot be asserted together without contradiction. So that is nothing unique about the ontological argument.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 07:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99799 wrote:
It is not inconsistent to define God as a being no greater than whom can be conceived, and then to deny that God exists. After the definition as the first premise, we still require other premises to reach the conclusion that God exists. For example, that existence is a perfection (or property). So, from the definition alone, nothing follows about the existence of God.


Ahem... Included in Anselm's work is the very premise you ask for - namely, that it is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind. Anselm gives the example of a painting existing as being greater than the painting only in the mind of the artist.

If God does not actually exist, then God cannot be that of which nothing greater can be conceived. Thus, to deny that God exists, and to understand the definition of God, is inconsistent.

kennethamy;99799 wrote:
But, even suppose it immediately did follow that God exists from the definition, as you say,


No sir, I did not say anything. I'm repeating Anselm's argument and Merton's opinion of it. I'm not arguing anything at all.

kennethamy;99799 wrote:
that is still an argument.


As I clarified, any declarative statement of substance is an argument. Anselm's argument, however, is not necessarily an a priori argument for God's existence; instead, it is an argument that intends to establish that, if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 07:17 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99799 wrote:
It is not inconsistent to define God as a being no greater than whom can be conceived, and then to deny that God exists. After the definition as the first premise, we still require other premises to reach the conclusion that God exists. For example, that existence is a perfection (or property). So, from the definition alone, nothing follows about the existence of God.

But, even suppose it immediately did follow that God exists from the definition, as you say, that is still an argument. And argument with only one premise, and the conclusion (God exists). That kind of argument is called an "immediate inference". It is true that if the ontological argument is valid, then the premise (the definition) and the negation of conclusion (that God exists) cannot be asserted simultaneously on pain of contradiction. But that is true of every valid argument: that the premises and the negation of the conclusion cannot be asserted together without contradiction. So that is nothing unique about the ontological argument.

What is the point of a definition chasing a phenomenon around when the phenomenon has such a head start???
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 12:49 pm
@Fido,
Fido;99813 wrote:
What is the point of a definition chasing a phenomenon around when the phenomenon has such a head start???


What phenomenon are you talking about? And how do definitions chase anything? Sorry. No idea what you are talking about.

---------- Post added 10-26-2009 at 02:58 PM ----------

Didymos Thomas;99808 wrote:
Ahem... Included in Anselm's work is the very premise you ask for - namely, that it is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind. Anselm gives the example of a painting existing as being greater than the painting only in the mind of the artist.

If God does not actually exist, then God cannot be that of which nothing greater can be conceived. Thus, to deny that God exists, and to understand the definition of God, is inconsistent.



No sir, I did not say anything. I'm repeating Anselm's argument and Merton's opinion of it. I'm not arguing anything at all.



As I clarified, any declarative statement of substance is an argument. Anselm's argument, however, is not necessarily an a priori argument for God's existence; instead, it is an argument that intends to establish that, if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence.


What is a declarative statement of substance? Suppose I say that the summer leaves are green. How in the world is that an argument? Since the ontological argument's conclusion is that God exists, how is it possible that it establishes that, if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence. ?. For, an argument can establish only its conclusion, and that, "if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence", is not the conclusion of the ontological argument.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;99893 wrote:
What phenomenon are you talking about? And how do definitions chase anything? Sorry. No idea what you are talking about.

---------- Post added 10-26-2009 at 02:58 PM ----------





The phenomenon I am referring to is God...It is easy to define a fish, if you have a fish.. We have definitions of God, but no God to compare our definitions to... That is a definition chasing a phenomenon...It does not matter how a thing is defined without the thing... It is all meaningless... Yet, God is for this reason all meaning and no being.. We should never ask what God is, and always ask what God means...Our belief in God says everything about us and absolutly nothing about God..
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:31 pm
@Fido,
Fido;99982 wrote:
The phenomenon I am referring to is God...It is easy to define a fish, if you have a fish.. We have definitions of God, but no God to compare our definitions to... That is a definition chasing a phenomenon...It does not matter how a thing is defined without the thing... It is all meaningless... Yet, God is for this reason all meaning and no being.. We should never ask what God is, and always ask what God means...Our belief in God says everything about us and absolutly nothing about God..



I think what Fido said is dead on and it is a coincidence that this discussion in another thread says exactly what he is trying to say here in the # 12 post by me in this thread, It is all about the difference between Being and reality.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/6273-causal-argument-introduction-2.html
0 Replies
 
Shostakovich phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 11:56 pm
@Fido,
Fido;99982 wrote:
The phenomenon I am referring to is God...It is easy to define a fish, if you have a fish.. We have definitions of God, but no God to compare our definitions to... That is a definition chasing a phenomenon...It does not matter how a thing is defined without the thing... It is all meaningless... Yet, God is for this reason all meaning and no being.. We should never ask what God is, and always ask what God means...Our belief in God says everything about us and absolutly nothing about God..


I expect that there are some Christians in this forum who would argue, as I would, that scripture informs us who God is, and what God means ... and while belief in God does say something about us, I wouldn't say it says everything about us. If I accept Jesus as the Messiah, my Saviour, and the Way the Truth and the Life, but look upon myself as a poor slob who isn't worthy to tell others that he tries (at least) to follow the example of Jesus, by practicing his teachings, then I think that does say something substantial about what I believe God is and means. But then, there is the risk here, in my opinion, of falling into folly ... throwing oneself at the mercy of organized religion ... and forgetting that you have your own mind, with which to think. So I end up being an independent, like one of those poor politicians who never gets enough votes, and who is decried by their supposed peers, as a lone heretic.

In the field of philosophy I haven't run across a single philosopher who could provide for me, a substantial meaning of God. If I read a single page of scripture, it's there staring me in the face, and I can't get rid of the idea that there's a transcendent mind out there that has put into words those thoughts and events recorded there.
 

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 07/20/2024 at 07:39:12