4
   

Do you believe in God?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 12:23 am
@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..


Before the planet, Neptune was discovered, there were perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, which no one could explain, until it was hypothesized that these perturbations could be caused by another planet. As a result, astronomers kept looking for that planet, and finally discovered Neptune Was that a definition in search of a phenomenon too? The definition was, "what is causing the perturbations in the orbit of Uranus". And the definition of God is, "what causes the universe". Neptune was also defined without the thing. And there was that thing, Neptune.
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 08:08 am
@Shostakovich phil,
kennethamy;99893 wrote:
What is a declarative statement of substance?


One that is meaningful.

kennethamy;99893 wrote:
Suppose I say that the summer leaves are green. How in the world is that an argument?


Logically, it is a poor argument because it is not valid. However, that declarative sentence does reach a conclusion, that the leaves are green.

kennethamy;99893 wrote:
Since the ontological argument's conclusion is that God exists,


According to most readers of Anselm (because we are talking about his supposedly ontological argument, and not ontological arguments in general), that is the conclusion; however, it is possible to disagree on this point. Some people read the argument as I explained: not as a straightforward a priori proof of God's existence, but as an argument that establishes the inconsistency of understand the first premise and denying that God exists.

kennethamy;99893 wrote:
how is it possible that it establishes that, if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence. ?.


It establishes this simply by pointing out that it is greater to exist in reality than only in understanding. Again, Anselm gives the example of a painting to illustrate his point.

kennethamy;99893 wrote:
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.


So you assert, but I've given examples of disagreement and explained them.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 09:16 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;100081 wrote:
One that is meaningful.



Logically, it is a poor argument because it is not valid. However, that declarative sentence does reach a conclusion, that the leaves are green.



According to most readers of Anselm (because we are talking about his supposedly ontological argument, and not ontological arguments in general), that is the conclusion; however, it is possible to disagree on this point. Some people read the argument as I explained: not as a straightforward a priori proof of God's existence, but as an argument that establishes the inconsistency of understand the first premise and denying that God exists.



It establishes this simply by pointing out that it is greater to exist in reality than only in understanding. Again, Anselm gives the example of a painting to illustrate his point.



So you assert, but I've given examples of disagreement and explained them.


If the conclusion is that the leaves are green, then what is the premise of the argument? An argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion?

Since the conclusion of the ontological argument for God is that God exists (what else could it be), then it seems to me wise to read the conclusion as, that God exists. The argument might, of course, illustrate other things. But what the argument illustrates is one thing. What the conclusion of the argument is, is a different thing.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 10:18 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100101 wrote:
If the conclusion is that the leaves are green, then what is the premise of the argument? An argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion?


Any good argument, sure. Premise and conclusion. But this is all beside the point, which had to do with God.

kennethamy;100101 wrote:
Since the conclusion of the ontological argument for God is that God exists (what else could it be), then it seems to me wise to read the conclusion as, that God exists. The argument might, of course, illustrate other things. But what the argument illustrates is one thing. What the conclusion of the argument is, is a different thing.


Only if we take just the bare bones out of context. You might recall that Aquinas was talking about the fool from Psalms who understands the claim that God exists, yet rejects the existence of God. That's the whole point of making the argument. It is always wise to go back to the text.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 05:29 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
Shostakovich;100013 wrote:
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.

Ya, right... If your trust is in scripture, your faith is in people...

---------- Post added 10-27-2009 at 07:39 PM ----------

kennethamy;100017 wrote:
Before the planet, Neptune was discovered, there were perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, which no one could explain, until it was hypothesized that these perturbations could be caused by another planet. As a result, astronomers kept looking for that planet, and finally discovered Neptune Was that a definition in search of a phenomenon too? The definition was, "what is causing the perturbations in the orbit of Uranus". And the definition of God is, "what causes the universe". Neptune was also defined without the thing. And there was that thing, Neptune.

That was a conundrum in search of an explanation...I like that word: conundrum...My father used to say that when he meant to say condom... I guess to a sperm, it would be a sort of riddle...The last I heard, they will still dealing with perturbations they could not account for, even with Pluto...
If you say there was reason to look for something specific, matter, in reference to a gravitational effect on the planets; that is far more than we have of the nature of God... We have a general effect, existence for which we seek a specific cause... Upon what evidence do we proceed??? Well it is our own lonliness, our pain, and desire for the power we hope to manipulate in God... What have we for our trouble???. A hand full of nothing...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 06:06 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;100117 wrote:
Any good argument, sure. Premise and conclusion. But this is all beside the point, which had to do with God.



Only if we take just the bare bones out of context. You might recall that Aquinas was talking about the fool from Psalms who understands the claim that God exists, yet rejects the existence of God. That's the whole point of making the argument. It is always wise to go back to the text.


Any argument, by definition of "argument", has a premise and a conclusion. Otherwise, whatever it is, it is not an argument. The statement, "The summer leaves are green" is, just a statement. That statement may be a part of an argument, of course. Either a premise, or a conclusion. But as it stands, it is but a statement.

The point of making the argument is one thing. But the argument is a different thing. It might be that at least one of the points of making the ontological argument is to show that it is inconsistent to assert that God is a supreme being, and deny that God exists. But that is not the ontological argument.
0 Replies
 
kimmycub13
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 08:22 pm
@ninja pirate,
A conscious human takes time to develop. You exagerrate far too much. Of course we did not simply pop into existence and began reading blogs. It was wide array of steps to lead us to where we are now. Evolution, if you can believe it.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 05:57 am
@kimmycub13,
kennethamy;100224 wrote:

The point of making the argument is one thing. But the argument is a different thing. It might be that at least one of the points of making the ontological argument is to show that it is inconsistent to assert that God is a supreme being, and deny that God exists. But that is not the ontological argument.


Again, I am not talking about ontological arguments in general, I am specifically referring to an argument set forth by Anselm of Canterbury that is often called an ontological argument.

Ontological arguments typically establish God's existence. Anselm's argument does something a bit different, and, according to Father Thomas Merton, is not an ontological argument at all.

I'm not talking about Avicenna's ontological argument or Descarte's ontological argument. I'm talking about Anselm - and have been this entire time, a point I have made again and again.

Once again: you can go back to the text for context - Anselm is specifically refuting the fool from Psalms who understands what it means to say "God exists" yet rejects God's existence. He is showing this position to be inconsistent.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:37 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;100263 wrote:
Again, I am not talking about ontological arguments in general, I am specifically referring to an argument set forth by Anselm of Canterbury that is often called an ontological argument.

Ontological arguments typically establish God's existence. Anselm's argument does something a bit different, and, according to Father Thomas Merton, is not an ontological argument at all.

I'm not talking about Avicenna's ontological argument or Descarte's ontological argument. I'm talking about Anselm - and have been this entire time, a point I have made again and again.

Once again: you can go back to the text for context - Anselm is specifically refuting the fool from Psalms who understands what it means to say "God exists" yet rejects God's existence. He is showing this position to be inconsistent.


Yes. He is showing that God exists by showing the fool's position to be inconsistent. But, the conclusion of Anselm's argument is that God exists. So, that is what he is arguing. Again, how a conclusion is argued is one thing. But what the conclusion is, is a different thing. Merton ought to have distinguished between the two. Question: What is Anselm's conclusion? Answer: That God exists. His conclusion is what it is that he argues.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 01:24 pm
@kennethamy,
You are going to criticize Merton without having even read the work? Talk about hubris.

Again, if you want to take Anselm completely out of context, you may have a point. However, if we take the time to read the selection, to consider the context, we have to admit that Anselm was not making an ontological argument like Descartes. I've explained this several times - why you keep posting the same response is beyond me.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 03:35 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;100367 wrote:
You are going to criticize Merton without having even read the work? Talk about hubris.

Again, if you want to take Anselm completely out of context, you may have a point. However, if we take the time to read the selection, to consider the context, we have to admit that Anselm was not making an ontological argument like Descartes. I've explained this several times - why you keep posting the same response is beyond me.


Descartes's and Anselms's arguments were different in some ways. Descartes was trying to revive Anselm's argument after it had been discarded as a consequence of Aquinas's criticisms of it. But, despite the differences, both were arguments from "the nature of God" (which Aquinas argued could not be known). So both were making an ontological argument. That is what an argument from the nature of God means. And both, of course, concluded that God exists. Of course, Merton was a Thomist (as you pointed out) so he would take the kind of view you ascribe to him. Does he happen to say in what respects the two arguments differ? Except in style, of course.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 12:29 pm
@kennethamy,
Father Merton was not a Thomist (and I never said he was), he was a Trappist monk - a Catholic monk.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 03:04 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;100528 wrote:
Father Merton was not a Thomist (and I never said he was), he was a Trappist monk - a Catholic monk.


That does not mean he could not be a Thomist, does it?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 10:19 am
@kennethamy,
I'm sure Merton had a great deal of respect for Aquinas, but he also had a great deal of respect for Anselm. I've never read anything that would place him as a Thomist, necessarily.
0 Replies
 
skeptic griggsy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 12:49 pm
@Pythagorean,
No, without the brain, no mind can possibly exist. Lo, when a part of the brain is damaged, so is the mind. No one can define God as having a mind without a brain- just another it must be of theism!
Time, event,cause and explanation presuppose previous ones! So this is evidence for infinity. One ever begs the question in assuming a starting point as the Kalam so does.
As there is nothing transcendent to Existence, no being can start it, and there is no material whence it comes therefore. When space expands, it expands into itself. Sub-atomic events have no causes. Whilst parts of Existence come and go, quantum energy is eternal as the law of conservation notes. Google Quentin Smith to see what he states about parts of the Universe[ Metaverse]. making for other parts such that it is eternal.
Google Rudiger or Rudy Vaas for information of the cosmology of
all this. His anthology on the eternal universe doesn't appear until February 2010, two years late.
Please read carefully the introductory post!
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 07:03 pm
@Pythagorean,
Certainly I do.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 07:24 pm
@kiuku,
This post (and many others in which you're responding) are inactive. The author of the thread has long since left the forum. Check the datestamp and you'll see it was created 7 yrs ago and last contributed to 5 yrs ago.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 09:36 pm
Wait for it





wait for it




No
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2014 09:47 pm
@edgarblythe,
Edgar, you are a mirabella cut diamond, not a diamond in the rough.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2014 04:49 am
@glitterbag,
Me speak. Multitudes listen. Not charge enough fee.
 

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 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2024 at 10:45:58