yuri
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 1
Country: USA
Politics: Communist, Marxist
Religion: Hinduism
Relationship Status: Single
Age: 19
Philosophy: Atheist, Moral anti realist, Dualism Externalism
|
Post by yuri on Jan 6, 2019 0:11:19 GMT
I was just wondering if any theist here have a good argument for there particular God Concept? I personally think God is an incoherent concept. But i'm curious to see what the theist have to say on this particular matter.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 6, 2019 0:31:42 GMT
Can you explain more what you mean by "incoherent concept"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2019 1:08:30 GMT
Can you explain more what you mean by "incoherent concept"? Yeah, I dont know what he means. All concepts are effectively incoherent at one point or another. This statement is incoherent.
|
|
yuri
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 1
Country: USA
Politics: Communist, Marxist
Religion: Hinduism
Relationship Status: Single
Age: 19
Philosophy: Atheist, Moral anti realist, Dualism Externalism
|
Post by yuri on Jan 6, 2019 7:02:39 GMT
Can you explain more what you mean by "incoherent concept"? Yeah, I dont know what he means. All concepts are effectively incoherent at one point or another. This statement is incoherent. I don't know what that statement means. Could you elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 6, 2019 7:07:36 GMT
Let's put it this way....
We can't see God physically so God doesn't exist.
And if we can't see God physically then it means God can't see us physically then so we don't exist.
But we do exist. So can't God exist too? 2 things do not need to see each other and can still exist.
|
|
yuri
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 1
Country: USA
Politics: Communist, Marxist
Religion: Hinduism
Relationship Status: Single
Age: 19
Philosophy: Atheist, Moral anti realist, Dualism Externalism
|
Post by yuri on Jan 6, 2019 7:53:29 GMT
Let's put it this way.... We can't see God physically so God doesn't exist. And if we can't see God physically then it means God can't see us physically then so we don't exist. But we do exist. So can't God exist too? 2 things do not need to see each other and can still exist. What's that in reference to?
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 6, 2019 8:22:37 GMT
Let's put it this way.... We can't see God physically so God doesn't exist. And if we can't see God physically then it means God can't see us physically then so we don't exist. But we do exist. So can't God exist too? 2 things do not need to see each other and can still exist. What's that in reference to? Just part of the existence of God that this topic is titled. Basically, how do we know something doesn't exist yet? We meet new people all the time and before we met them we didn't know they existed. Same concept can be applied to anything else like God. Or no?
|
|
yuri
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 1
Country: USA
Politics: Communist, Marxist
Religion: Hinduism
Relationship Status: Single
Age: 19
Philosophy: Atheist, Moral anti realist, Dualism Externalism
|
Post by yuri on Jan 6, 2019 8:58:05 GMT
What's that in reference to? Just part of the existence of God that this topic is titled. Basically, how do we know something doesn't exist yet? We meet new people all the time and before we met them we didn't know they existed. Same concept can be applied to anything else like God. Or no? Of course, but you can disprove God deductively. I wouldn't use what you just stated as an argument.
|
|
yuri
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 1
Country: USA
Politics: Communist, Marxist
Religion: Hinduism
Relationship Status: Single
Age: 19
Philosophy: Atheist, Moral anti realist, Dualism Externalism
|
Post by yuri on Jan 6, 2019 9:19:52 GMT
For example we can't see the laws of Logic but we know they exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2019 19:28:10 GMT
Just part of the existence of God that this topic is titled. Basically, how do we know something doesn't exist yet? We meet new people all the time and before we met them we didn't know they existed. Same concept can be applied to anything else like God. Or no? Of course, but you can disprove God deductively. I wouldn't use what you just stated as an argument. You can disprove anything seductively, because deduction is atomization. You can deductively cancel out deductivity into conductivity where the atom maintains itself as a constant proof.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 6, 2019 20:37:18 GMT
I was just wondering if any theist here have a good argument for there particular God Concept? I personally think God is an incoherent concept. But i'm curious to see what the theist have to say on this particular matter. The idea I am about to express is a combination of Descartes proof of God as well as the proof from Aquinas. (Both those are worth exploring in themselves). It goes like this: Which is greater: A slug or nothing? Obviously a slug is infinitely greater than nothing. Would you believe somebody if they said a slug caused the universe? Not likely! So why do you believe those who say nothing caused the universe? It is infinitely more likely that the slug did it because we already know that a slug is infinitely greater than nothing. Ok well that is just likelihoods. Something like the universe is much greater than the slug, so that which is greater cannot come from that which is lesser. But the universe is still infinitely greater than nothing! So on that basis you cannot say the universe comes from nothing. Ok so maybe it was not God but just super-aliens that caused the universe. Perhaps this entire universe is just a theme-park or the set of an elaborate alien movie, and we are just the decorations and extras. Well in that sense, the super-aliens are pretty much God, not so? At least from our perspective, there is precious little difference...
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 6, 2019 23:33:35 GMT
Just part of the existence of God that this topic is titled. Basically, how do we know something doesn't exist yet? We meet new people all the time and before we met them we didn't know they existed. Same concept can be applied to anything else like God. Or no? Of course, but you can disprove God deductively. I wouldn't use what you just stated as an argument. Why not? It basically works like the laws of logic that you mentioned. It's not seen but it's there. Something can therefore exist even if we can't or don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 14, 2019 22:28:27 GMT
I was just wondering if any theist here have a good argument for there particular God Concept? I personally think God is an incoherent concept. But i'm curious to see what the theist have to say on this particular matter. The only attempt to prove God's existence that I ever found interesting, is the one by Kurt Gödel: A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both: A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is posi- tive T1 Positive properties are possibly D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties A3 The property of being God-like is positive C Possibly, God exists A4 Positive properties are necessarily positive D2 An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties T2 Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being D3 Necessary existence of an individ. is the necessary exemplifi- cation of all its essences A5 Necessary existence is a positive property T3 Necessarily, God exists
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 14, 2019 22:40:30 GMT
Why the need to put God on a stand though? I mean people usually like privacy and to be known only so much or known to those that like them. So I mean, doesn't God have the same right too?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 15, 2019 0:11:56 GMT
I was just wondering if any theist here have a good argument for there particular God Concept? I personally think God is an incoherent concept. But i'm curious to see what the theist have to say on this particular matter. The only attempt to prove God's existence that I ever found interesting, is the one by Kurt Gödel: A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both: A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is posi- tive T1 Positive properties are possibly D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties A3 The property of being God-like is positive C Possibly, God exists A4 Positive properties are necessarily positive D2 An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties T2 Being God-like is an essence of any God-like being D3 Necessary existence of an individ. is the necessary exemplifi- cation of all its essences A5 Necessary existence is a positive property T3 Necessarily, God exists In this and in any other argument for the existence of God, there is one basic fault: the assumption that the word "God" is meaningful. Usually the proponents of gods tacitly assume the notion of "god" as is in some religion or other, or give their own definitions, which can be as diverse, and even as contradictory as the gods of religions. Why is there the need to speak of a god rather than a devil or of some entity which is in addition to our evident entities??? Are there really non-evident gods? Medieval Christian theologians spoke of the two books of Revelation [of God]: the sacred Scriptures, supposedly inspired by God, and human reason (or philosophy). Both are subject to critical reason. (Start with the analysis of "God/Gods" in "Genesis", as the German Biblical scholars started to do in the 19th century.) Then ask: What, in history, prompted some humans to conceive or speak of a "god"?
|
|