percieving God through reality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » percieving God through reality » percieving God through reality

percieving God through reality
The undeniable reality

Page: 1 2

percieving God through reality

Advance
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 45

Posted 11/21/09 - 07:06 PM: Subject: percieving God through reality	#1
In the name of God, the lord of the worlds, There is no such thing as a proof for God's existence. Who ever is trying to discover a proof has already defeated themselves through this very endeavor. God CANNOT be proven. And there is no one who does not affirm His existence. Everyone affirms His existence (at least tacitly). As long as people acknowledge a reality (whatever it may be) they acknowledge God. what people think about this reality or God is a god. Therefore, even Dawkins acknowledges God because he acknowledges a reality. But what Dawkins thinks about reality is the issue. And this cannot be proven. Because no two people will agree about what this reality is. Every single individual has a different way of thinking about what reality s. Only the perfect man does not limit reality by thinking about what it is. Only perfect man knows WHAT this reality is through reality itself against the goal of stripping away all "thoughts" about reality. If one wants to know what God is, they must first abandon "proofs". For proofs are nothing but limits imposed on reality itself. For a person who thinks that God is improbable, or that God doesnt exist, he or she doesnt have in mind God but rather has in mind a god. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought. If someone thinks that God is not necessary, or if someone thinks that God could have not existed, or that God s probable, then they are not thinking about "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". And if they are not "thinking about that than which nothing greater can be conceived", then they dont have in mind God but a god. So obviously Dawkins has in mind god, not God. Edited by Tobias on 11/22/09 - 02:10 AM. Reason: capitalization
I have not worshipped you because of fear of your hellfire nor love for your paradise but I have found you a God deserving to be worshipped.

Sashianova
work in progress

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009
Location: Los Angeles

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 331

Posted 11/21/09 - 07:42 PM:	#2
This is not so much an argument as it is dodging all conceivable manner of observing/proving/disproving/confirming God/evidence of God and presenting a scenario in which God's existence is merely dependent on this prescribed, self-affirming definition. It's not unlike the scenario I presented in another thread wherein I posited that all of existence is the evidence of God and there's no way to differentiate the evidence from anything else because it is everything.

Advance
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 45

Posted 11/21/09 - 07:57 PM:	#3
I would agree with the notion that all parts of this physical reality are subjected to God's will, thus are proof of his existance. However,I have no intrest in using such internal implications to prove God rather than use [the obvious necessity of a necessary existance](ie God). In other words, means of proving God are questionable amongst humans, whereas the reality of a necessary cause ,a proper one,can not be argued.
I have not worshipped you because of fear of your hellfire nor love for your paradise but I have found you a God deserving to be worshipped.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 134
Total Posts: 7148

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 11/21/09 - 08:03 PM: Subject: Slice and dice	#4
First paragraph: Contention one: That there are no (valid? Cogent?) arguments for god's existence. You have simply asserted that there are no proofs of god's existence. Why should we pay attention to you opinion? Contention two: God and reality are identical. No, they aren't. Same counter-argument. Second paragraph: Contention three: No two people agree about what reality is because we each think about it differently. I contend that we agree about the nature of reality to a remarkable extent; sufficient for the almost ubiquitous use of language. We can talk because we share the world. Contention four: Only the perfect man knows reality. The term "perfect man" remains undefined, and so is senseless, or is defined as 'he who understands reality", in which case I, and most of my friends, are perfect... including some women. Third paragraph: Fifth contention: People who disagree with me should not use a capital letter in the word "god". Why not? Sixth contention: God is that, a greater than which cannot be conceived; but god, isn't. Is this a lesson on punctuation?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Advance
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 45

Posted 11/21/09 - 08:21 PM:	#5
hello banno. Perhaps I should clarify what said reality means.It is the reality of existance rather than not, Any agreement on a lesser reality does not contradict the claim.When I made the assertion that Perception of reality equals the perception of God, this is a fundamental necessity and not to imply a physical relationship.The deviation between a God and a god arises when the proper cause is not well understood to some, technically all entities are a product of such first cause whether they fully comprehend it or not,but are subjects of its implications.
I have not worshipped you because of fear of your hellfire nor love for your paradise but I have found you a God deserving to be worshipped.

thewatcher
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 322

Posted 11/21/09 - 09:19 PM:	#6
Sashianova wrote: there's no way to differentiate the evidence from anything else because it is everything. Yes, because it is not like we can learn anything about something from, say, its internal composition, or where its component parts stand in relation to each other or anything like that.

Sashianova
work in progress

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009
Location: Los Angeles

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 331

Posted 11/21/09 - 09:40 PM:	#7
Cut me some slack with the rolling eyes, Jack. It's not something I believe. It's hypothetical. It's a given that we do not know everything about the universe. If we were to learn absolutely every empirical thing about the universe and arrive at the conclusion that its existence is the result of God, and that every empirical thing makes perfect sense within that conclusion, then every bit of internal composition and every component part would be evidence of God.

thewatcher
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2009

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 322

Posted 11/21/09 - 10:01 PM:	#8
Sashianova wrote: Cut me some slack with the rolling eyes, Jack. It's not something I believe. It's hypothetical. Oh, that's not increduility. That's my having a seizure from the brain damage all of my jumping to conclusions seems to have caused me. Seriously, apologies. I must have missed my vitament B supplement today. Or for the last several days. Sashianova wrote: It's a given that we do not know everything about the universe. If we were to learn absolutely every empirical thing about the universe and arrive at the conclusion that its existence is the result of God, and that every empirical thing makes perfect sense within that conclusion, then every bit of internal composition and every component part would be evidence of God. That seems to make sense. Although, in fairness I suppose even in that case their would be limits. Upon reflection, I am not convinced that all the internal study in the world can ever get you to something external if you are trapped within the very thing you are studying. This seems to be the essential lesson of hermeneutics, after all.

jorndoe
Investigator

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

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 900

Posted 11/21/09 - 10:50 PM:	#9
Seems to be the usual hotchpotch of presuppositions, bare assertions, and such. Well, and a bit of confusion among the words "God", "god", and "reality". Anselmian thinking never seem to specify what "greater" means. What exactly is being measured here? I'll wager it is not "evil" you have in mind. Oddly enough, Advance, you seem to be providing what you're arguing against..? What's this necessary, proper, indisputable cause you mention? Hopefully we're not back to the old kalam/cosmological arguments. • if there is no God, then no affirmative proof exists • if there is a God (or Gods), then evidence or proof may exist
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Advance
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 45

Posted 11/22/09 - 09:35 AM:	#10
jorndoe, To assert ones existance is to presuppose a previous reality when there existed nothing in time thus asserting a neccessary cause,that which must be deemed proper enough to be the first cause of the consciousness of matter. To relate between an unknown unknown and a necessary unknown, that which by definition is unlimited, is wrong. To claim that pink elephants live on the moon is an unknown unknown but to say that beyond this existance exists a cause which can not be born into place through infinitive causes is a necessary assertion that is then interpreted not proven.
I have not worshipped you because of fear of your hellfire nor love for your paradise but I have found you a God deserving to be worshipped.

Page: 1 2

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