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

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

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?

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?

1.) Explain there's a God with the modification on logic that you speak of then.

2.) Secondly, that's the point, they can't be. I'm not talking about higher influence. I'm saying that the theist and atheist are constructs of powers, not in the magical sense. In other words, in that post I responded to, I got the implication the poster thought just because someone is theist, they are freer (by saying they are mortals, instead of their own God..like he said atheists were, I got this implication.) And I disagree with this; we're all on the same playing field, despite our personal "truth".

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,
Well it seems that the side-issue here is freedom, and me implying more for atheism than theism, but what I was originally trying to state was that it perhaps isn't as illogical or 'crazy' to go down the theism path as some might say.

This was because I think the idea of God represents half of a rather important, existential dichotomy. The dichotomy is created when a very reasonable and simple question is posed in light of ones existence... is there anything I should do? (Or what should I do next? Leading to the former question) I guess the earliest example of the answer 'yes', would be animal sacrifice to make the sun rise; the control of existence is external and not because the subject made or invented it that way, because that's how it is (as far as the subject is concerned at least). He wouldn't be a Christian if he agreed that he invented his God and the rules his Holy Father dictates. If he did he would be an enlightened Christian and now probably atheist.

My original sentiment was that this discovery of God is logical and should not be faulted in any way because it is achieved by the exact same process as atheism, which would be answering 'no' to'is there anything I should do?'
With that answer the subject is now forced to give life it's own meaning, and it is both exciting and terrifying. I was ready to go on and describe Hume's ideas of cause and effect in 'an enquiry concerning human understanding' and how most understanding is founded on the observation of cause and effect, it would then follow that we would follow cause and effect backwards into the unknown projecting the idea of God above us, as he would logically be the observable cause for the effect of ones existence (hence why the question of why we should/shouldn't do anything is such a natural one.) This was my original sentiment anyway; that it is reasonable and logical to appeal to God is such away.

Also 'the question', I'm sure, could come in a few forms, I tried to give one earlier- 'what should I do next?' Leading to the former question or 'why am I here?' which jumps the gun a bit but, if there is nothing you should do then there is no reason why you are here.

So yes all meanign is invented, but I will still maintain that it is either external meaning- 'yes' there is somthing I should do, some preordained obigation... or no! I am my own God and there is only what I could do, nothing is a should. Is there any other existence than with a God or without a God?

Dan.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

Explain there's a God with the modification on logic that you speak of then.

I do not see the usefulness in proving or disproving God in the first place, so my involvement on the topic has more to do with asking questions. Which is why I asked those questions - if we cannot use logic at all, how else are we to try and prove or disprove God?, and why can we not use logic at all?

Quote:

Secondly, that's the point, they can't be. I'm not talking about higher influence.

We both agree that neither is any more or less free than the other.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

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

Heh, got me!

Quote:

I've never asked, but are you an Inwagen fan?

I haven't read him. I'm intrigued by his writing about evil, though.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Which is why I asked those questions - if we cannot use logic at all, how else are we to try and prove or disprove God?, and why can we not use logic at all?

I know no other way to prove or disprove anything without using logic. If we want to apply logic, then we can say that a tub of soap 25 light years away is controlling the president of the United States currently - and logically, it may be the same chance a God exists. But, logically, we can't denounce that magical tub of soap anymore than any notion of God.

I don't think we want to take that route, which is why I don't feel logic should be applied to a matter like this; I don't find it useful either, and I think we're in agreement across the board. Some things, I believe, are not understood through logic. Science and logic have their place, and though I live a life limiting my ignorance as much as possible (as a result of me thinking logically!), I also have hope and faith in things that wouldn't make sense in the realm of logic. I would feel as if I'm doing myself an injustice to base my life over either logic or faith entirely - I try to be as open-minded as possible, and this is definitely not limited by only those things that appear to have concrete evidence. This is not to say I'm superior to those that live their lives either by logic or faith entirely, but it is to say I'm different and this is my truth; considering other realms of possibility is what I thrive off of.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

I don't mean to be too dismissive here, but honestly logical / rational attempts at God-proofs have not been an important part of philosophy for about 500 years. Sure, you see people on this or that forum putting forth logical arguments; but you don't see serious scholars of philosophy working on that subject. Descartes killed Scholasticism (despite offering a God proof of his own that was a weak copy of Anselm's), Spinoza buried it, Hume left it in the dust, and Nietzsche spat on its grave.

In the Middle Ages, once Europe became exposed to the philosophical works of ancient Greece (mainly through contact with Islam), the rhetorical power of rational philosophy (a la Plato and Aristotle) became incorporated into theology. Thus, people who were already consumed with theological questions began to value rational argument. This resulted in Scholasticism, which was a movement characterized by a marriage between Christian theology and rational philosophy (including logical arguments about God). The apotheosis of this was Aquinas, the greatest of the Scholastic thinkers.

But their movement has been dead since the beginning of the Renaissance and certainly since the Enlightenment, thanks to some of the greatest thinkers of the early modern period. So I'm not sure why you're making the effort to take down the idea of a logical God proof -- because it's already been done.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Zetherin,

I don't mean to be too dismissive here, but honestly logical / rational attempts at God-proofs have not been an important part of philosophy for about 500 years. Sure, you see people on this or that forum putting forth logical arguments; but you don't see serious scholars of philosophy working on that subject. Descartes killed the God proof, Spinoza buried it, Hume left it in the dust, and Nietzsche spat on its grave.

In the Middle Ages, once Europe became exposed to the philosophical works of ancient Greece (mainly through contact with Islam), the rhetorical power of rational philosophy (a la Plato and Aristotle) became incorporated into theology. Thus, people who were already consumed with theological questions began to value rational argument. This resulted in Scholasticism, which was a movement characterized by a marriage between Christian theology and rational philosophy (including logical arguments about God). The apotheosis of this was Aquinas, the greatest of the Scholastic thinkers.

But their movement has been dead since the beginning of the Renaissance and certainly since the Enlightenment, thanks to some of the greatest thinkers of the early modern period. So I'm not sure why you're making the effort to take down the idea of a logical God proof -- because it's already been done.

Oh, has it? I've never heard of any such logical God proof, but please direct me to a link, as I'm very interested in the matter. Frankly, I didn't think it was possible to prove God with logic.

As for logical God proofs not being a current part in modern philosophy, who cares? We are no longer in the 14th century when authorities are it - we can think for ourselves, and are even encouraged too. Though I study philosophers and their teachings, I don't limit myself to them, nor would I limit myself by not advancing in something based on popular philosophy. So it matters not to me what raving philosopher killed the idea of something - I can bring it alive (and we all can if we choose).

Let me please note that this post wasn't supposed to be rash or sarcastic, though I know my writing often comes off as such. I want you to know I appreciate you and everyone's input on this forum, as I'm learning much.

Thanks,

Z

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

I dont really think its possible to prove or disprove the existence of God either.

Logically you can ponder & theorize of course, but you cant PROVE it. Neither can you really disprove. Anything thats along the lines of supernatural is too fluid and flexible to be pinned down by any type of proof against it.

Religion after all is based on faith.

1 Reply

@Teena phil,

Teena wrote:

I dont really think its possible to prove or disprove the existence of God either.

Logically you can ponder & theorize of course, but you cant PROVE it. Neither can you really disprove. Anything thats along the lines of supernatural is too fluid and flexible to be pinned down by any type of proof against it.

Religion after all is based on faith.

Those were my thoughts exactly.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Oh, has it? I've never heard of any such logical God proof, but please direct me to a link, as I'm very interested in the matter. Frankly, I didn't think it was possible to prove God with logic.

Are you joking? How about Duns Scotus, or St. Anselm, or Avicenna (in Islam)? St. Anselm's proof is often regarded as logically 'perfect'.

Quote:

As for logical God proofs not being a current part in modern philosophy, who cares? We are no longer in the 14th century

Which is why it's puzzling that you're responding to a type of philosophy that lived and died then.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Are you joking? How about Duns Scotus, or St. Anselm, or Avicenna (in Islam)? St. Anselm's proof is often regarded as logically 'perfect'.

Which is why it's puzzling that you're responding to a type of philosophy that lived and died then.

No, I'm not joking; I'm not familiar with them (which is why I asked for a link politely)

Wait, are you implying that just because a facet of philosophy 'died' in the past, we shouldn't contemplate it now? I truly hope not.

You seem frusterated for some reason. Care to explain?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

(which is why I asked for a link politely)

(and then apologized if your post came off as rash or sarcastic)

Quote:

Wait, are you implying that just because a facet of philosophy 'died' in the past, we shouldn't contemplate it now?

No, I'm just wondering what inspired you to take on the project of proving the untenability of God proofs. God proofs died in philosophy not because of logical counterarguments (as you're offering), but because the basic theological assumptions in Scholasticism were rejected by rationalist philosophy. So now, living in an era that began with the rationalists, I think it's worth starting from their ideas first.

Alternatively, you can start with the God-proof by St. Anselm, which many regard as the most logically sound of all God-proofs. His is the ontological argument, which is one of the basic 'types' of God proof. I think it would be a good and very interesting addition to this post for you to critique Anselm's proof based on your arguments.

Have you considered, by the way, that a 100% logically perfect proof of God is possible, and yet this STILL will not prove God's existence? This is my contention -- that God can be logically proved and still not actually exist.

Quote:

You seem frusterated for some reason. Care to explain?

I'm not frustrated -- I'm just writing short messages because I'm at home watching my 2 month old today so it's hard to avoid sounding curt.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

(and then apologized if your post came off as rash or sarcastic)

No, I'm just wondering what inspired you to take on the project of proving the untenability of God proofs. God proofs died in philosophy not because of logical counterarguments (as you're offering), but because the basic theological assumptions in Scholasticism were rejected by rationalist philosophy. So now, living in an era that began with the rationalists, I think it's worth starting from their ideas first.

Alternatively, you can start with the God-proof by St. Anselm, which many regard as the most logically sound of all God-proofs. His is the ontological argument, which is one of the basic 'types' of God proof. I think it would be a good and very interesting addition to this post for you to critique Anselm's proof based on your arguments.

Have you considered, by the way, that a 100% logically perfect proof of God is possible, and yet this STILL will not prove God's existence? This is my contention -- that God can be logically proved and still not actually exist.

I'm not frustrated -- I'm just writing short messages because I'm at home watching my 2 month old today so it's hard to avoid sounding curt.

Consideration inspires me. I was never trying to prove anything, and from the looks of your responses you took my posts out of context and not how I intended. But more importantly, I don't necessarily like starting from my contemporaries as you do. Again, just because someone (your example of rational philosophers) killed ANY idea, does NOT mean I will not explore it if I choose.

The reason for my apology is that sometimes the tone of my posts can be miscontrued, and I didn't want for you to think I was mocking you or that my verbosity was superior - I've seen some of this on the forums, so I decided it was best.

Thank you for the clarification on the God-proofs; you've enlightened me. And I will look into the philosophers you have mentioned and examine the cases more in depths. I'm learning.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

more importantly, I don't necessarily like starting from my contemporaries as you do. Again, just because someone (your example of rational philosophers) killed ANY idea, does NOT mean I will not explore it if I choose.

You can choose to do so if you want. And you can also relive the pre-Socratic argument about whether existence is a unity or a plurality, or whether the fundamental element is water or air. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, I'm just pointing out that few people in modernity feel that God's existence can be rationally or logically proved -- so your intellectual adversary in this debate is not clear.

That said, there's nothing wrong with you sharing your view and provoking conversation, and I thank you for doing so. I just hope you can incorporate some perspective on the historical debate into this discussion.

You didn't respond to my point above, which is that it doesn't even matter if God can be logically proved, because a 100% logically airtight God proof, even if possible, STILL does not mean that God actually exists.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

You can choose to do so if you want. And you can also relive the pre-Socratic argument about whether existence is a unity or a plurality, or whether the fundamental element is water or air. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, I'm just pointing out that few people in modernity feel that God's existence can be rationally or logically proved -- so your intellectual adversary in this debate is not clear.

That said, there's nothing wrong with you sharing your view and provoking conversation, and I thank you for doing so. I just hope you can incorporate some perspective on the historical debate into this discussion.

You didn't respond to my point above, which is that it doesn't even matter if God can be logically proved, because a 100% logically airtight God proof, even if possible, STILL does not mean that God actually exists.

I'm not trying to have an adversary - that's the point.

Secondly, I have no perspective on the historical debate, nor do I have a response to your point above. I was curious, vented my views as of current, asked questions, but in the end can't construct an intelligent argument at this time as I am not versed in much you propose and won't spit dirt to save face.

I will research, learn, think more, and then engage you in conversation, but I will not do such with the inclination you are my adversary.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I will research, learn, think more, and then engage you in conversation, but I will not do such with the inclination you are my adversary.

I meant adversary only in the sense of an intellectual dialogue.

And in that sense you and I are not adversaries, because I DO agree with you that it's impossible to logically prove God. But one reason I dismiss the importance of this effort is because I think it wouldn't matter a bit even if God could be proved. His existence would be proved solely within a logical system but not outside it (and certainly not as stated by scripture).

And this leads to my point about history. The era of Scholasticism prioritized this effort because rational philosophy became trendy in a culture that was already deeply (and fundamentally) religious. So the belief system was applied to a whole new system of philosophy. But in so doing they elevated logic to a canonical level, and would never have abided my argument that a logical proof is irrelevant.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I checked out st. anelm's proof and it does not seem very convincing.
it states that god is the greatest thing that can possibly be concieved( seems shakey already) and then states that to exist is better than to not exist, thus if god was perfect he must exist in one's mind and thus reality as the mind is within reality and if god did not exist, god would not be perfect(remember that to exist is better than not to exist)
If god is that of which nothing greater can be concieved, he is still within the relm of conception and thus not beyond man but of him. This is the first problem I have with it, it seems that if god and his intents can be understood by man, which is necessary if he is to be concievable(unless I suppose the notion of him is the greatest thing concievable and you assume that the notion of a thing is less great than its properties and conciousness, but I don't see how one can without defining what greatness is exaclty, nonetheless what it was in 1100 AD) then he is simply of man, as he can be encapsulated within the mind of man.

My argument for disproving the possiblility of a proof related to god is that god cannot be understood by man for man is bound by physical reality, which is assumed by the standard(meaning of course the roman cathoic or traditional presbyterian) christian theology to be the creation of god, and since man is bound by physical reality, and is a creation of god, anything of him is also a creation of god including his process of reason. Man's process of reason(logic) is essentialy the law of non-contradiction and a creation of god applied to other things within the sphere of god's creation, i.e. all physical objects, any conclusions drawn by logical analysis must be bound within the sphere of god's creation, which is of god, but not necesarrily of the same nature of god entirely (for if it was, then there would be not a single mystery which we could not penetrate and understand fully for all things would be of our nature and thus understandable by us, that is, if you believe that man can ever fully understand those things which are not mystical, but if you don't then we are getting ahead of ourselfs by trying to understand things that are not of our nature). Assuming that we are not entirely of god's nature by the afformentioned line of reasoning, and that we are bound being his creation and thus all that we do is his creation by the argument for such above, it is not sensible that we can even understand god as the creator.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

I'm not convinced by Anselm either, but you haven't addressed the points of his critique.

One of the other great God proofs from the Middle Ages was from John Duns Scotus:

John Duns Scotus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I had trouble finding his actually proof and could only find summaries. All of the summaries generally agreed so I took them as accurate, but if you could provide a link to and actual text it would be most appreciated. I am currently looking at the link you provided. I think it is a good direction for this discussion to attempt to dissect the various established god proofs if for nothing else, a unique mental excersise.

Edit:my first problem with the argument is that perfection is not defined and he cites an example, dependence, as being imperfect. Perfection's ambiguity has been the downfall of most of these sort of things.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

First, check out the chapter on his theology in this book, starting on page 193:

The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus - Google Book Search

Here is the text, though it's elaborate and it's not the easiest to follow translation:

John Duns Scotus

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know