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?

jorndoe
Investigator

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

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

Posted 04/25/09 - 08:23 PM:	#71
dclements (#2) wrote: There are many people in history that have had a religious experience that have in there own words been touched by God that go against what people often think of what God is. Is it possible that some of these people have access to knowledge than might even alter 180 proof's belief in that God does not exist? Well, what kind of (potentially extensive) examination, and investigation, might alter your beliefs (if any)? dclements (#32) wrote: Or perhaps it might be better not to assume anything at all if one doesn't know what God is. Paul (#40) wrote: If you can't even describe how you think he exists, your assertion is senseless. You seem to be trying the classic externalist leap of getting some external party to know stuff for you so you can claim to get it by slight of hand. That's pretty close to my observations as well. Firstly, I don't think anyone with a bit of interest in philosophy claims that absolute, true knowledge is readily attainable. If there is something absolute, universally true, then knowing that does not appear forthcoming. Refer the diallelus for example. Nothing new there, though it seems to be re-iterated over and over (during certain debates). I'm guessing it's popular because it's an easy way to "level the play field", to make all subsequent statements appear equally valid. Secondly, often it seems that arguing for these supernaturals starts from this appeal to unknowability, and leaps on to: (1) God is by definition unknowable (possibly even defined as undefined..?) (2) God exists (3) God is omni, a-temporal, etc (5) God have created our reality, including space and time themselves (4) God have installed free will, souls, and such, in humans How is it that goes again..? The kalam and ontological arguments are interesting enough though, since they make you think it over. aletheist (#41) wrote: I believe that we have been down this road before. If there were really no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural, or for the existence of God, then no reasonable person would believe in such things. Many reasonable people do hold and have* held such beliefs. Therefore, there must be at least some evidence supporting such a conclusion--unless you are claiming that every theist is unreasonable, which is something that I think you would need to argue, rather than just assert. It's not really so much about specific people, I think, as it is about arbitrary claims. The question here is: exactly what evidence are you referring to? Given the abundance of rock boulders, trolls that turn to stone also exists, by the way.
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: 5116

Posted 04/25/09 - 09:48 PM:	#72
Is there a definite difference between "necessary being" and "being qua being"? (If there isn't a definite difference, then claiming that "a necessary being exists in every possible world" is incoherent because "being qua being" -- synonymous with "necessary being" -- would entail "every possible world".) Also, can anyone explain how theism (i.e. belief in a "personal, transcendent, supernatural, creator" god) rationally follows from deism (i.e. belief that (a) "necessary being" caused, or sustains, all contingent beings)? Doesn't the "revealed god" precede the "god of reason"? If so, then why do apologists attempt to justify "revealed truths" with metaphysical demonstrations? Shouldn't "revealed truths" be self-evident to -- assented to by -- everyone who comprehends them like, for instance, mathematical truths (e.g. Meno's slave in Plato's Meno)? Edited by 180 Proof on 04/25/09 - 09:55 PM
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 04/26/09 - 03:34 AM:	#73
180 Proof wrote: Well, how hard is it really to disprove that which is not -- perhaps, cannot be -- proven? (Or rather persuade disbelief in that which is patently incredible?) True since the only one that can know whether God exists is God himself, since it is always possible that when one is a non-God being to be tricked by other beings that are more advanced or clever than oneself. 180 Proof wrote: Isn't a process an object? The term, as I use it, simply denotes a generic what (i.e. quiddity, or what-ever it is) -- not necessarily a "thing" or "person". SnoopDoug, in fact, posits god (i.e. necessary being) as "a being" which is coverage by my usage. "Whatever your god is" is what I meant by treating god as an object, and on this basis investigate some sine qua non, or property without which it is not conceived of -- by religious theists -- as "god". Not exactly. A process is a series of actions that can happen to an object or objects that changes them from one state to another. Take fire for instance. At one point you have a match, then you have something acting on the match to make it catch, then the matches burns giving off a red/orange glow and heat, and then you are left with some ashes. With processes the distinction of an single object isn't as important as the states the the object or objects go through. Another example is water. It can be in various states and various quantities such as a mere drop or a stream. When people use to not understand the world around them they would assume that some spirit like being was responsible for making food grow, rain to fall, and everything else in their live that was important. By assuming that they were dealing with a human like entity it helped them get along with their lives. However as time went on and we understood things better we stared to think of all the complex things in our lives as being merely part of a process or processes that can be manipulated and used as we wish. However, human life too is merely a process and if thought of that way we can be manipulate and used the same way as all other processes are. 180 Proof wrote: I think the question is, and always has been for skeptics, whether or not the interpretation of any experience as "religious" (i.e. miraculous, supernatural, paranormal, etc) is rational, or at minimum, corroborative (i.e. warrantable). Well, one can not rationally state something is true or not true unless they know about it. One can assume that a religious experience is just like any other experience, but how would one know unless they had one? Since this question has come up enough I think it might be better to give an example of what an religious experience is in order for some people reading this stuff that don't know might understand. The example is merely one type or way that one might experience it, but not the only way. Take for example years ago if you were a elderly shaman and your tribe needed some help in trying to find a resolution to a problem may it be war famine, etc and they needed you to consult the spirit world or gods. The process was a simple one in which you would be buried up to your head, give a little bit of food and water, and left to wait as someone such as a child was left to watch over you to make sure nothing bad(like an an animal attacking you) would happen. After several days or perhaps a couple weeks after having bugs crawl all over you, being exposed to the elements, and being stuck in the ground unable to move you would go into something I guess some would call shock. The simple reason for this is that body and mind after enduring such trauma for awhile starts to think you may be dying and so it pushes the panic button in the hopes that in can convince you to stop whatever stupid thing you are doing. Unfortunately, being buried in the ground prevents any quick way to get out and the only immediate thing you can do is to scare the poor child that has been watching you who then runs off for help. Meanwhile you are left with your mind and body acting sort of like the operators of three mile island pushing every button, turning any knob they can find in the hopes that they can find a way out of their situation. If you were the shaman going through all of this you would experience your ego being brushed aside and certain neuron pathways fire that are normally kept from firing. Although it is not guaranteed to happen every time, some times when someone is going through such an ordeal they get to see what is hidden behind the curtain that our mind creates for us. In the East this is sometimes called 'enlightenment' in the west it is sometimes called talking with(or touched) God. The downside is that such experiences are not what many would consider safe and leave one for the rest of their life unstable, perhaps even unable to function in regular society, which is why the curtain is there in the first place. I could try to explain in more detail what is behind the curtain and how it helps proves God's existence, but such things are tricky at best and even if someone read what I wrote it is likely their mind would merely block what I was saying to them.
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

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1447

Posted 04/26/09 - 04:29 AM:	#74
jorndoe wrote: Well, what kind of (potentially extensive) examination, and investigation, might alter your beliefs (if any)? Read the reply I just gave to 180 proof for this question. jorndoe wrote: That's pretty close to my observations as well. Firstly, I don't think anyone with a bit of interest in philosophy claims that absolute, true knowledge is readily attainable. If there is something absolute, universally true, then knowing that does not appear forthcoming. Refer the diallelus for example. Nothing new there, though it seems to be re-iterated over and over (during certain debates). I'm guessing it's popular because it's an easy way to "level the play field", to make all subsequent statements appear equally valid. Secondly, often it seems that arguing for these supernaturals starts from this appeal to unknowability, and leaps on to: (1) God is by definition unknowable (possibly even defined as undefined..?) (2) God exists (3) God is omni*, a-temporal, etc (5) God have created our reality, including space and time themselves (4) God have installed free will, souls, and such, in humans How is it that goes again..? The kalam and ontological arguments are interesting enough though, since they make you think it over. It's not really so much about specific people, I think, as it is about arbitrary claims. The question here is: exactly what evidence are you referring to? Given the abundance of rock boulders, trolls that turn to stone also exists, by the way. Perhaps it is easier to think of God as almighty instead of all powerful for people that can't get over the omni part. Like in a chess game a player even if he is God can't just knock over all your pieces and declared that he won and still be thought of as playing chess. Instead he would play the game and beat you every time not only because he would know the move you would make before you made it and second because he knows the game of chess better than anyone else. Although some might not think of him as an omni-chess player since he didn't just knock over all their pieces, but that is only because they want to see things that way. Also as I explain several times God may not be a 'being' in the typical sense in which we think of beings. He could be appear to us as a process, a way of thought, or perhaps as beings or agents. Just as we are unable to completely understand the human mind and body we should be ready for the the complexities of understanding a being such as God which should be much more complex than us. Just as I explained to 180 proof about processes one should not assume that an object or the the state of something such as water means that you understand everything there is not know about that thing. With processes, things can change and how they appear now will be different then if you see them at another time.
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

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 04/26/09 - 04:42 AM:	#75
There are people who tell stories of out-of-body experiences and intimacies to God and other from such dangerous situations and to simply reject their stories may not be a wise way to conduct one's life. I remain open-minded to nature's remaining mysteries. I hope there may be decisive accounts in the future. Make the most of your experience!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

bert1
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 04/26/09 - 06:25 AM:	#76
Erik wrote: Yes, I know this sounds like nonsense of the most ridiculous sort, It doesn't sound like ridiculous nonsense at all to me. I agree with much of what you say in your post.
"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