Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist? » Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 05/01/09 - 08:13 AM:	#91
Sorry I'm late in replaying..been having computer issues at home... jorndoe wrote: Which the individual can do themselves, e.g. by taking antibiotics per doctors orders. What kind of manipulation did you have in mind? When people use to think of natural processes as living breathing being like themselves they would respect the world around them more because they felt that if they tried to abuse nature that they would face bad consequences in equal measure to the damage that they caused. However, now that know that how natural processes work we use them any way that we see fit without any fear. The same some thing can happen to human beings. When we are just numbers on a spreadsheet and become 'resources' to be used by corporations however they see fit for their bottom line..things can sometimes become less pleasant then we would like them to be. jorndoe wrote: The scenario you describe is reasonably well-known, as well as many others similar. Qs: . is this what you would call evidence of God's existence (also refer aletheist, post #41)? . if yes, does that mean that any hallucinatory-alike experience, as interpreted by the hallucinator, is evidence for whatever the interpretation says? . would it be safe to say that any such interpretation constitues factual truth for everyone else than just the person that had the experience? The philosophically inclined (i.e. visitting the forums) are probably interested in understanding the world, so please feel free to uncover your proverbial curtain. It is not usually considered evidence by those that do not believe, however it presents a problem for those that wish to just dismiss God. If you really don't know about something how do you dismiss it as untrue without understanding it? Think of child that never believes what their parents tell them until they become experienced enough to be able to understand it themselves. There are many ways in which one's perception can be hindered in which makes them unable to understand the world around them, or perceive things in a different way. For example if you were color blind you wouldn't be able to tell the differnce between colors as way as someone who wasn't, but it is possible that your nightvision would be better. However just because you couldn't explain your situation to others clearly doesn't mean that your are lying or what you say is untrue. Another example is that fact that light only exists for 15 secounds after it is created. This doesn't make sense if you also know that light can travel for thousands of years before reaching us and becoming visible to us. So how does something that lasts only 15 secounds also exists for thousands of years as it travels through space? The answer is simply that since time is relative the light experiences time very slowly since it is travelling so fast and so the 15 secounds of existance that it experiences takes thousands of years to the world around it to pass. The bottom line is that it is possible that in order to see and understand God some may need to have a different perception of the world or addition knowledge.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 05/01/09 - 02:04 PM:	#92
bert1 wrote: What I would like to query is your use of the word 'exist'. Do your shoes exist? It seems you would have to say 'no' if I hold you to the view that only substance exists. Of course, I know what you mean. In normal usage, though, 'exists' is normally applied to the modes of substance, not to substance itself. Spinoza points out that "normal usage" is sub specie durationis but that an adequate conception of Substance will be sub specie aeternitatis. My shoes alone do not exist; rather they exist insofar as they are necessarily related to everything else (all of which are modes of Substance). This holistic, or synoptic, perspective is not limited to (our) "usual" naivete or instrumentality. SnoopDoug wrote: Okay, so you're defending ontological monism, then? No. Spinoza's conception of Substance is non-reductive and quantification itself (not unlike Wittgenstein's "logical form"). Just as it's incoherent to call arithmetic "a monism" because quantity is delimited by arithmetic (e.g. natural numbers), it is incoherent to call Substance "a monism" if it is the only source of quantification (e.g. continuum hypothesis). Ontological holism is more precise. Sub specie aeternitatis, there are no separable parts (of) Substance. I think Spinoza's argument has the same problem Parmenides' argument had - namely, he begs the question by assuming that all substance (or being) is univocal. Read Spinoza's Ethics. Section One: On God. His conception of Substance is definitely not Parmenidean Being redux. Why can't there be different kinds of being? I've cited the relevant passages from Spinoza's Ethics in post no. 85 above. Edited by 180 Proof on 05/01/09 - 02:28 PM. Reason: Fidelity sans faith ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 05/01/09 - 11:56 PM:	#93
180 Proof wrote: Spinoza points out that "normal usage" is sub specie durationis but that an adequate conception of Substance will be sub specie aeternitatis. My shoes alone do not exist; rather they exist insofar as they are necessarily related to everything else (all of which are modes of Substance). This holistic, or synoptic, perspective is not limited to (our) "usual" naivete or instrumentality. sub specie durationis = under the aspect of time. sub specie aeternitatis = under the aspect of eternity. I know this is all a bit academic, as I agree with your metaphysics, but I think this is a little bit slippery. The only time we would ever use the (admittedly unlikely) sentence 'my shoes exist' is precisely the time when we can distinguish them from the rest of Spinoza's cosmic porridge. Existent things stand out. Perhaps you want to say there are two senses of exist? One for substance and one for modes? Or perhaps you want to say that there is something we can distinguish Substance from...? ...but surely not, as that would entail dualism. 180 Proof wrote: SnoopDoug wrote: Okay, so you're defending ontological monism, then? Ontological holism is more precise. Is the Hindu concept advaita, or non-duality, the same as ontological holism? Monism does imply countability which is problematic in relation to substance. Edited by bert1 on 05/02/09 - 12:14 AM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 05/02/09 - 01:22 AM:	#94
bert1 wrote: I know this is all a bit academic, as I agree with your metaphysics, but I think this is a little bit slippery. Well, it wouldn't be much of a fish (on a tricycle) if it wasn't ... Existent things stand out. Perhaps you want to say there are two senses of exist? One for substance and one for modes? Or perhaps you want to say that there is something we can distinguish Substance from...? Neti neti. Is the Hindu concept advaita, or non-duality, the same as ontological holism? Yes, I think they're similar but not the same. Also the Chinese notion of dao ... Edited by 180 Proof on 05/02/09 - 02:02 AM. Reason: grammar
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 05/03/09 - 04:25 AM:	#95
dclements wrote: Another example is that fact that light only exists for 15 secounds after it is created. This doesn't make sense if you also know that light can travel for thousands of years before reaching us and becoming visible to us. So how does something that lasts only 15 secounds also exists for thousands of years as it travels through space? The answer is simply that since time is relative the light experiences time very slowly since it is travelling so fast and so the 15 secounds of existance that it experiences takes thousands of years to the world around it to pass. Off topic I know, but though I would clear this up. If light (i.e. a photon) does decay, we would never be able to find out about it in principal. This is because light has substituted all of its movement through the dimension T, for movements in the X,Y,Z spatial universe. Put simply, it will never decay, it has no half life in this universe. To be honest you had me going there! thanks for providing an interesting research option. M

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

Posted 05/09/09 - 04:06 PM:	#96
dclements (#91) wrote: It is not usually considered evidence by those that do not believe, however it presents a problem for those that wish to just dismiss God. If you really don't know about something how do you dismiss it as untrue without understanding it? Think of child that never believes what their parents tell them until they become experienced enough to be able to understand it themselves. In this context, I don't think "dismissing God" is the culprit, rather, it's the alleged "proof" that's objectionable. I personally find that parent-child analogy patronizing/condescending; you're simply proclaiming "you don't understand", i.e. I have the truth-patent, and you're wrong, period. The kind of "understanding it" you're referring to, is what I'm objecting to on rational grounds, whereas "dismissing God" is a separate debate. What does "understanding it" mean? (I was brought up in a Christian society, went through confirmation, all that, so you can skip over that stuff.) Are you referring to experiences brought about by those extreme physical conditions described in post #73? dclements (#91) wrote: The bottom line is that it is possible that in order to see and understand God some may need to have a different perception of the world or addition knowledge One more bottom line: it is possible that the mentioned "different perception" is a "delusion" (or perhaps hallucination). Should be easy enough to find examples of this situation at least. As mentioned: jorndoe (#77) wrote: You're charging ahead a bit fast here, without actually addressing the queries. Speaking (eh writing, or arguing) in terms of a factual God was a dead giveaway. dclements (#73) wrote: I could try to explain in more detail what is behind the curtain and how it helps proves God's existence Please go ahead.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 05/09/09 - 06:31 PM:	#97
jorndoe wrote: dclements wrote: I could try to explain in more detail what is behind the curtain and how it helps proves God's existence Please go ahead. That "kick me" sign on dclements' back -- I don't think he really means it, jd. Edited by 180 Proof on 05/13/09 - 04:00 PM. Reason: grammar ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Machiveli
post-philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004

Total Topics: 122
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 05/11/09 - 02:40 PM:	#98
I fall into the 'god doesn't exist' camp but a potential flaw troubles me.. 180 you use logic to argue that God cannot exist since it is transcendental. (i.e that very notion of an object which is not an object is contradictory) Yet either logic is itself transcendental or not transcendental. If logic is transcendental then transcendental things can exists since logic is one such example. If logic is not transcendental it is merely arrived at due to our experience of the universe in which case logic cannot be used to disprove god in anything more than an inductive sense.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5115

Posted 05/11/09 - 04:11 PM:	#99
Machiveli wrote: I fall into the 'god doesn't exist' camp but a potential flaw troubles me.. 180 you use logic to argue that God cannot exist since it is transcendental. I argue that god does not exist insofar as god is transcendent not "transcendental".
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 05/13/09 - 01:36 PM:	#100
jorndoe wrote: In this context, I don't think "dismissing God" is the culprit, rather, it's the alleged "proof" that's objectionable. If one is an atheist they can always say that in order for theist to be right that have to prove that God exists and if one is a theist they can always say that atheist have to prove that God does not exist. However both arguments are biased since it is impossible to either prove that God exists or that God does not exist, unless one is God or has God like awareness. jorndoe wrote: I personally find that parent-child analogy patronizing/condescending; you're simply proclaiming "you don't understand", i.e. I have the truth-patent, and you're wrong, period.. Well when an adult tells a child that they are too young to understand it is no surprise if the child feels that the adult is condeescending. But even if the child feels this way doesn't mean the adult wants the child to feel that way. All it may be is that the adult knows that it is a complex subject and that it is difficult to explain it to someone so young. Also it doesn't mean the adult is 'right' and the child is 'wrong'. Instead all it mean is that the child is unable to understand without a lot more knowledge under their belt in order for them to be able to grasp the subject. jorndoe wrote: The kind of "understanding it" you're referring to, is what I'm objecting to on rational grounds, whereas "dismissing God" is a separate debate. What does "understanding it" mean? (I was brought up in a Christian society, went through confirmation, all that, so you can skip over that stuff.) Are you referring to experiences brought about by those extreme physical conditions described in post #73? The 'it' I'm referring to is knowledge of human nature, various world religions, and understanding the world around us. I know that saying that doesn't narrow it down much, but if you want an easier way to understand 'it' you would need to be able to perceive various viewpoints that are not your own (the more different they are than yours the better) and know the fallacies of your own view. For example, you know that errors in assuming that God exists wiht out question, but do you also know the error of not questioning why you question? After all the may be no reason to question at all and bothering with question may be just as good in believing in non-existing Gods. If this is true then your questiong of people that believe in Gods is no better then them even if God does not exist. jorndoe wrote: One more bottom line: it is possible that the mentioned "different perception" is a "delusion" (or perhaps hallucination). Should be easy enough to find examples of this situation at least. As mentioned: All perceptions are in their own way delusional, but being able to perceive things in multiple ways at the same time help reduce the problems with this. jorndoe wrote: Please go ahead. I will reply to this part latter on tonight, but I have run out of time for now...
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.