unknown title: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » unknown title » unknown title

unknown title

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

unknown title

CalypsoPensante
Concordius Ariel appeto

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
Location: Roma

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 443

Posted 08/26/05 - 04:58 PM:	#81
How would you prefer God to revel himself and his will? Once that’s answered ask him to do it, then get back to us to tell us what happened. If he doesn’t do it your way maybe that’s because he thinks his way is better I assume he’s right since the concept of God is infinite wisdom, do you disagree wisdom exists? If so what’s the point of the intellect if not to be applied to the discovery of truth (science) or use truth to improve life (technology)? Also you need to disprove infinity? Since we are finite we can only grasp degrees of infinity, but were is this infinite knowledge existing if its not a self-sufficient causeless causer of truth?
And the next day God made waffles for the man and they were delicious.

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

Posted 08/27/05 - 10:32 PM:	#82
Maybe I shouldn't, but... CalypsoPensante wrote: How would you prefer God to revel himself and his will? Once that’s answered ask him to do it, then get back to us to tell us what happened. If he doesn’t do it your way maybe that’s because he thinks his way is better Are you saying that if we ask God to reveal himself, and there is no response, that this is evidence of God's existence? I assume he’s right since the concept of God is infinite wisdom, do you disagree wisdom exists? No - your definition of what God is doesn't necessarily tack on to what we do and do not believe. You may consider God to be infinite wisdom, but if an atheist claims to not believe in God, they may not share the same definition. If I claim that God is a fish, that does not imply that all atheists are also anichthysists, or whatever you call non-believers in fish. If so what’s the point of the intellect if not to be applied to the discovery of truth (science) or use truth to improve life (technology)? Eh? What? Also you need to disprove infinity? Since we are finite we can only grasp degrees of infinity, but were is this infinite knowledge existing if its not a self-sufficient causeless causer of truth? I'm not certain what that means, but once again, not believing in God certainly doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in infinity. I can believe in infinity by noticing that as x increases without bound, it doesn't stop increasing. But, for example, the limit of 1/x as x increases without bound is not my idea of a deity. Godliness isn't an assumed part of infinity. Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from assuming that to not believe in God, we must also not believe in all of God's properties. This is obviously untrue with consideration. An object typically used in demonstrations of non-existent objects is a unicorn. Unicorns have horns, or if you disagree like Owen would, you could say that if they existed, they would have horns. But we can believe in horns without believing in unicorns, because I believe in rhinoceri, goats, and Satchmo.

doppelganger
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 78

Posted 12/27/08 - 12:45 PM: Subject: does god exist	#83
there is no way to talk about existence as it relates to god. everything that exists has attributes of time and space. so, as a preliminary matter, god does not exist. nevertheless, there must be a god. the existence of matter in the universe proves it. everything comes from something. everything has a beginning. the universe cannot just appear from nothing based on the foregoing indisputable premises. thus, an unmoved mover (aristotle) there must be a god who created all since without a god to bring being into time, there would be nothing, including no time and space.

timw
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2008

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 451

Posted 12/27/08 - 12:46 PM:	#84
"Whether there exists a supreme being" That is the topic of the debate. And the first comment is, "Out first God debate..." No, it is a confusion debate, and I'd be very surprised it it were the first. (Imo, "God" is the only complete, one-word question-begging argument in any language that contains the term.) What makes anyone thinks God is a supreme being? There is really no question about supreme beings. SImply define the property, go find the person or being supreme with respect to that property, and she-bang!! there you are. In any house with more than one cat, there is a supreme cat. (In houses with exactly one cat, there is also a supreme cat. And lest anyone get further confused, in houses with no cat at all, there is no supreme cat.) God, on the other hand, seems to be a notion that doesn't really comport with either superlatives or comparisons of any kind. As such "God" seems to be a limit term that refers to something that by construction forever sits beyond the reach of language. One gets a taste of this in the child's debate as to whether God can make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it—when truly engaged, the nine-year-old intellect usually manages to find grosser examples. It bothers me that no one follows out to the end the implication of "God," given an understanding of lanuage and thought and the limits of both. I think it comes back to us, the thinkers of God. We are God, nor is there another one. (This is akin to and also different from the common practice of primitives wherever found and including both gentle writer and reader of identifying themselves as "the people." Of course there are, always have been, and always will be, lots of Gods, very likely a universe full!) We gather the various threads of our thoughts, needs, desires, and so forth, rope-walk them until they form a formidable cable, and suspend ourselves by it. But where the end is fastened no one can say, because the truth is that it comes right back into ourselves. No more than that, but also no less. For those looking for a bit more grandeur, it's actually not that bad.

doppelganger
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 78

Posted 12/27/08 - 12:52 PM: Subject: does god exist	#85
how can you say, based on the definition of god (and if we attempt to discuss a new defintion, it must be stated or else there is no communication) that WE ARE GOD?

cckcckcc
Consciousness Incarnate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Location: ex nihilo

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 230

Posted 12/29/08 - 03:46 PM:	#86
The argument made by many, one of the few logical conclsions theists make, is that God necissarily exists because our universe exists and all things have cause and effect. That is a fallacy in itself. If all things in the universe have a cause then God would necissarily have a cause. The argument ignores a cause of God because he is viewed as infinite and timeless, but it is a unfounded assumption to believe that the universe could not be so with any less likelihood than God. Also, Did they never finish the debate or am I just not able to see it in its entirity? All I have seen are the first three posts. in addition the links on this particular thread seem to be broken.
"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water." ~Zen Buddhist Proverb I have this sneaking suspicion that I am really God and have invented everyone and everything as a means of fooling myself into not being lonely. I'm not sure if it is working yet.

Valent
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 157

Posted 01/22/09 - 02:50 PM:	#87
doppelganger wrote: how can you say, based on the definition of god (and if we attempt to discuss a new defintion, it must be stated or else there is no communication) that WE ARE GOD? I wasn't aware there was one proper definition of God. We had better go tell all those religions they've been getting it wrong. So... what is it?
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. -- Albert Einstein

HPMD
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 02/18/09 - 08:22 PM:	#88
One of the most reasonable thing that one can say to start the GOd debate is that without GOd there is no right no wrong. Atheists base their moral theory on utility to society but that still dosn't create morality. Because someone might kill aniother person and that is not useful to society, but it can't be pronounced morally wrong because they believe in no real innate morality, the same is true for social contracts. The atheist does believe there are wrong acts though. If you go up to an atheist and punch him in the face, he doesnt think " that had no societal use" he thinks ": that shithead punched me in the face, what a jerk!" but why is he a jerk? Simply because he doesnt ascribe to your abitrary utility theory? No no punching someone for no reason is wrong, but the answer lies in God who is the only source of the intelligibility of morality.

Valent
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 157

Posted 02/20/09 - 12:58 AM:	#89
HPMD wrote: One of the most reasonable thing that one can say to start the GOd debate is that without GOd there is no right no wrong. Atheists base their moral theory on utility to society but that still dosn't create morality. Because someone might kill aniother person and that is not useful to society, but it can't be pronounced morally wrong because they believe in no real innate morality, the same is true for social contracts. The atheist does believe there are wrong acts though. If you go up to an atheist and punch him in the face, he doesnt think " that had no societal use" he thinks ": that shithead punched me in the face, what a jerk!" but why is he a jerk? Simply because he doesnt ascribe to your abitrary utility theory? No no punching someone for no reason is wrong, but the answer lies in God who is the only source of the intelligibility of morality. So all atheists are utilitarians? Uhhh... No. We simply don't need God for morality, and this is evidenced by the fact that atheists aren't running around killing each other - in fact, it's the religious people that do that more often
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. -- Albert Einstein

genesis
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

0 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 03/03/09 - 09:47 AM:	#90
How could our puny little mind explain the existence of Supreme Being who created us? TELL ME PLEASE!!!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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