0
   

God Proofs Discussion(give em up if you got em criticize em if you don't)

 
 
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 12:00 pm
Here is the first post from the thread "Why Trying to Prove or Disprove god is Stupid" that was unfortunately closed due to a methodology error in attempting to p**** the logic of another post as it were:)

God is a being which cannot be defined as all who believe in him know him/her/it differently manifest as different things. God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him. Because he is beyond understanding, using a logical process to define him is a contradiciton, also, because he hypothetically created everything, including logic, he must also be outside of the system he created and it a part of or extension of him/her/it thus you are attempting to describe the properties of that in which we are contained from within and using parts of the container as the description. To describe somthing in terms of itself can only be approximate and the same is true of description in general, we can only approximate an object in words, pictures and ideas. Our understanding of that which we cannot replicate is incomplete and there is nothing that we can create, we can only manipulate our surroundings as we are a part of them.
In order for somthing to be the creator of somthing else it must be of a fundamentally different nature. We can manipulate patterns, this can be considered creative, but we cannot create matter or change physical law, we are bound by it and try our best to work around it to master our surroundings, but we do not have ultimate control over our surroundings because we are of them. A constituent of a whole,i.e. logic, cannot be used to describe it completely, it falls into an infinite loop (yes I do enjoy proof by infinite loops and contradictions but who doesn'tSmile) when describing itself.

Pick it apart, ask questions, post your own ideas, hell talk incoherently to non existent posters if you want just don't start verbally abusing each other I want to keep this one:D
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,706 • Replies: 59
No top replies

 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 12:19 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him.
My parents have taught me things that I could not possibly have known without them. Does that mean that they are beyond human understanding, or even beyond my understanding?

Quote:
Because he is beyond understanding, using a logical process to define him is a contradiciton
Everything in the universe is beyond complete understanding. Why should that deter us from creating definitions?

Quote:
he hypothetically created everything, including logic
Is logic a "thing" or a "creation"? I think not, logic is a syntactical organization within human cognition and communication. Logic doesn't exist independently of human thought.

Quote:
To describe somthing in terms of itself can only be approximate
And to describe something in terms of something else can only be relative.

Quote:
In order for somthing to be the creator of somthing else it must be of a fundamentally different nature.
My wife and I just had a baby, which is the creation of a whole new life. Are we of a fundamentally different nature from our son?
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 02:16 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
My parents have taught me things that I could not possibly have known without them. Does that mean that they are beyond human understanding, or even beyond my understanding?

I catch your drift, but I do not think that it applies to my argument, because you understand what they taught you they are of course not beyond human understanding, and I am certain that whatever lessons they taught you could have and have been taught to others, however valuable they might be.

Aedes wrote:
Everything in the universe is beyond complete understanding. Why should that deter us from creating definitions?

It shouldnt, and I never said anything of the sort. If you are assuming that I am attacking defining god you are sorely mistaken, for he must be defined for a proof to occur, another problem in proving him or disproving him.


Aedes wrote:
Is logic a "thing" or a "creation"? I think not, logic is a syntactical organization within human cognition and communication. Logic doesn't exist independently of human thought.

Of course logic is a creation in the context of an omnipotent go for that it is within human cognition it is defined as a creation as humans are defined as creations under the omnipotence of god as a primal creator, so taking god as the creator of humans and thus human cognition, god is thus the creator of logic as well as the things whihc logic can syntactially organize.

And to describe something in terms of something else can only be relative.
Aedes wrote:

My wife and I just had a baby, which is the creation of a whole new life. Are we of a fundamentally different nature from our son?

Congratulations:D, but that is not creation in my book ,but manipulation of physical data moving through a natural process. You engaged in a natural process that is definitely within the bounds of the physical framework of the universe. I do not consider human beings capable of fundamentaly
creating anything, just manipulating things within set physical laws and doin' their best with what they got to work with;).
Your baby doesn't bring new matter into the universe, but rather compiles the existing matter in a very unique way, but not a way that is beyond the physical laws of the universe. Essentially we are just compiled from basic elemental building blocks that follow basic rules that we have to play by, but we can be creative in the common sense, we can be cleaver, and trick out new tools by following instructions within the physical constraints of the universe(and this is what science is), but we still gotta play by the rules.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 03:31 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make a case for or against the sensibility of logical god proofs. I mean you're already operating on the end of a plank by generalizing about gods at all, considering the idea of a god is vastly different in non-"Western" traditions.

But I do think there is fallacy and a lot of assumption required to construct a logical negation of all logical God proofs. A good example is the following statement of yours:

Quote:
Of course logic is a creation in the context of an omnipotent go for that it is within human cognition it is defined as a creation as humans are defined as creations under the omnipotence of god as a primal creator, so taking god as the creator of humans and thus human cognition, god is thus the creator of logic as well as the things whihc logic can syntactially organize.
If this is the case, then God would also be responsible for God-proofs. So you trap the argument in a circle by assuming that God's omnipotence extends to the content of human thought.
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 04:32 pm
@Aedes,
I am speaking of god as The Creator, in the very western sense, for much of eastern religion is much more difficult to address both by density and unfamiliarity, plus it does not deal with the same metaphysical issues with which I am concerned here.

Yes, it is a circular trap and that is my assertion. I seek to prove that you cannot prove an omnipotent god.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:05 pm
@Zetetic11235,
And western notions of God do not present the same problems as eastern notions?

Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But here's my question - why do we need to prove the existence of an omnipotent God, or any other sort of God?
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:27 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Quote:
why do we need to prove the existence of an omnipotent God, or any other sort of God?
I think because God represents a very logical side to life; meaning and no meaning, purpose and no purpose, God is a general representation of the meaning/purpose side and I guess that would make atheism the other.

Perhaps that lends some sense to why we feel we must prove the non-existence of God. See what I did there Wink

Dan.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:34 pm
@de budding,
Quote:
I think because God represents a very logical side to life; meaning and no meaning, purpose and no purpose, God is a general representation of the meaning/purpose side and I guess that would make atheism the other.


Take Aedes - he's an atheist, but I'm fairly certain he finds some meaning or purpose to his life.

As for God representing a logical side to life, could you elaborate?

Quote:
Perhaps that lends some sense to why we feel we must prove the non-existence of God. See what I did there Wink


To establish that life is meaningless or without purpose?
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:46 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Well the most fundamental ting we all posses is existence, and it follows that we should ask if there is something we should do with this existence or not (purpose/no-purpose meaning/no-meaning.) As it is a fundamental self exploration, does it not make sense to explore both avenues?

Dan.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:50 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
I seek to prove that you cannot prove an omnipotent god.
You cannot prove any other kind of god either, so why focus on the omnipotent ones? Any logical proof that relies wholly on non-physical evidence will have embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:14 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Any logical proof that relies wholly on non-physical evidence will have embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries.


Doesn't any logical proof at all have some sort of embedded assumption, whether it be to do with existence, consciousness and the like.

Dan.
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:14 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
Well the most fundamental ting we all posses is existence, and it follows that we should ask if there is something we should do with this existence or not (purpose/no-purpose meaning/no-meaning.) As it is a fundamental self exploration, does it not make sense to explore both avenues?


Sure, but to equate theism and atheism with this investigation of meaning/non-meaning doesn't make much sense to me.

I understand that God, for many people, provides meaning and purpose. But we can have meaning and purpose without God - even the theist can have meaning and purpose apart from his beliefs regarding God.

So, yeah, let's investigate the matter, but let's not inextricably tie the issue to theism/atheism.

Quote:
Any logical proof that relies wholly on non-physical evidence will have embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries.


I agree - but doesn't this also reduce the bulk of metaphysics to embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries?
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:19 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Sure, but to equate theism and atheism with this investigation of meaning/non-meaning doesn't make much sense to me.

I understand that God, for many people, provides meaning and purpose. But we can have meaning and purpose without God - even the theist can have meaning and purpose apart from his beliefs regarding God.

So, yeah, let's investigate the matter, but let's not inextricably tie the issue to theism/atheism.


But any employed meaning which doesn't include some form of God is self-employed purpose and meaning. On the atheist side life has no meaning so we have the exciting job of giving it meaning; the two types of meaning are very different.


Quote:
I agree - but doesn't this also reduce the bulk of metaphysics to embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries?


Maybe, no matter what, there is some reality from which we draw our sense data, this world maybe completely different but will be completely relative.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:22 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I agree - but doesn't this also reduce the bulk of metaphysics to embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries?
ALL of metaphysics -- not just the bulk. I've made that argument many times on this forum that metaphysical concepts and discussions are inseparable from the language used to express them and the minds used to generate them. Without any grounding in the physical world, i.e. something that we can all share, metaphysics has no logically necessary foothold in reality.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:28 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
But any employed meaning which doesn't include some form of God is self-employed purpose and meaning.


But even finding meaning in God is a decision of the individual - we make the choice to believe in God and accept whatever other articles of faith we feel come along with God.

Quote:
On the atheist side life has no meaning so we have the exciting job of giving it meaning; the two types of meaning are very different.


I don't see the difference other than one person believes in God the other does not. Both have to determine their own meaning, even if that meaning is God - the choice is still the individual's.

Quote:
ALL of metaphysics -- not just the bulk. I've made that argument many times on this forum that metaphysical concepts and discussions are inseparable from the language used to express them and the minds used to generate them. Without any grounding in the physical world, i.e. something that we can all share, metaphysics has no logically necessary foothold in reality.


And every time I love reading it - which is why I provoked you to restate your view.

I've never asked, but are you an Inwagen fan?
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:49 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Well I mean the person who believes in God, he appeals to a higher power for meaning, he doesn't generate his own, he generates something that dictates it. I guess the difference is that an atheist is his own God and a theist is a mere mortal.

But I get the point :p, I think.

Dan.

p.s don't know who/what Inwagen is. Smile
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:58 pm
@de budding,
Quote:
Well I mean the person who believes in God, he appeals to a higher power for meaning, he doesn't generate his own, he generates something that dictates it.


If man generates something that generates man's meaning, didn't man generate his own meaning?

Quote:
p.s don't know who/what Inwagen is.


He's a modern philosopher who is most known for his work on metaphysics - his basic idea is that metaphysics is an impossible enterprise.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 09:50 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
You cannot prove any other kind of god either, so why focus on the omnipotent ones? Any logical proof that relies wholly on non-physical evidence will have embedded assumptions and/or linguistic tricks and vagaries.


Didn't we agree in the last thread that logic shouldn't be applied, lest we run into the things you mention?
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 09:57 pm
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
I guess the difference is that an atheist is his own God and a theist is a mere mortal.


I think you're forgetting that belief in a God isn't the only thing that dictates, or even influences, one's meaning for life. Though it appears theists are conforming more, atheists still conform. I think it's a grave oversimplification to think atheists are anymore "free" than that of their theist counterparts. They may not realize there's a higher influence, but there is. The "truth" they believe they've found isn't any more profound than that of a theist, in my opinion. This ties into the discussion earlier about everyone having their own "truth", and no "truth" is any better than any other.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 10:26 pm
@Zetherin,
Quote:
Didn't we agree in the last thread that logic shouldn't be applied, lest we run into the things you mention?
Two things: If we cannot use logic, how are we supposed to approach the issue? And, Aedes said "Any logical proof that relies wholly on non-physical evidence" not just any use of logic. So why go the extra step of not applying logic at all?

Quote:
Though it appears theists are conforming more, atheists still conform. I think it's a grave oversimplification to think atheists are anymore "free" than that of their theist counterparts. They may not realize there's a higher influence, but there is.
I'm not sure it's a matter of higher influence, though. Both the theist and the atheist are such by their own design. How can one be any more or less free than the other?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » God Proofs Discussion(give em up if you got em criticize em if you don't)
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 06:19:28