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 karl on Jan 15, 2019 2:51:57 GMT
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"? My personal view is that the core motivation for believing in God is the faith in that good must triumph over evil. This is the underlying concept of God in all monotheistic religions. This is also based on a deeply rooted need in the human psyche, which is why many atheists simply find something else to project this faith onto. -For example an unshakeable belief in a utopia emerging from futuristic tehcnology. God is an omnipotent force that makes sure that everything becomes right eventually.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 15, 2019 19:38:32 GMT
I am sorry you missed my point: not what prompts belief in a god, but what prompts, or prompted, some historical men to name something [What???] "god" by this or any other name (Gott, Theos, Deus, …) My view is that something is perceived or experienced, and then anything similar is called a "god". Accordingly, primordial human history is polytheistic, but eventually one god was elevated as a supreme god or, by analogy with humans, to a pair of supreme gods:Sky and Earth in the old Greek mythology; the Elohim in the Canaanite mythology or in Genesis-1; and so forth. The Sky, especially the stormy Sky, is an EVIDENT superhuman power...……., a great god.
|
|
|
Post by prophettom on Jan 16, 2019 16:34:47 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. Well I met him. Than I was judged for the choices I made about all that. A big part of that had to do with the things that religions rob from you in life. You know smoke a little weed. Have a beer, and once in a while a pick me up for a long day or trip. And that if there was a God like you seem to think for whatever reason perhaps something I had done I was not proud of. I had never gotten any Definitive proof that he did exist. I was not going to follow religion or go to church because I don't like them.
But that I had no right to keep them from God. So if asked I would say I believed there was. That away I would not push any away from him. Now if I was to go to hell for what I had done and he did exist that the eternal death was just fine with me. That way I would never disrupt Gods heaven. In truth I believed in Alien theory most. I took peace in that decision. Revisited it about three days later and took peace in it again. Knew this was the life I would follow. I also am a really honest person. I have been described as honest to a fault before.
Than it happened after the second time I took peace in all this! A great voice with much power when he spoke said. "YOU HAVE CHOSEN. AND YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED. AND YOU HAVE CHOSEN WELL. AND YOU HAVE BEEN CHOSEN." Than there was a song about what a honor from God it is to be his chosen. It honored God also for that choice. Like there was a celebration in heaven. The simple Law to follow is do to others as you would have them do for you. With a little common sense you will never fall. Stay away from religion it is the mark of the beast. We wont get into that any more right now.
God is real my friend. He does not care about worship or if you believe or not. He just wants you to follow that law. Do that and it is all good. So That is how I came to know. I know that is no proof to you. But I assure you it is so. Good luck. We all meet him at some point. His fallen are the ones that believe the death is best. But he does not. So don't worry about it. He restores all of us as we go. You are eternal. You are just the unfortunate product of a few fallen Gods. That are in a lesson about repenting from all this. You will be okay sooner than you know.
Best I got. Yes I have seen vision and witnessed a few miracles and now fight his fallen Directly teaching people about God. So they may meet him in a more pleasant manner than those who follow religion and know not they carry the mark of the beast. Spread the disease of laws that never lead to peace. And subtleties that teach you to be prejudice like saying pussy is a sin but saying Vagina or putty poo is not. Yet the image in the mind is the same. It only gives us reason to hate for no reason. That is the abuse of power Devils have done. But that is all about to end.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Jan 19, 2019 19:20:00 GMT
I am sorry you missed my point: not what prompts belief in a god, but what prompts, or prompted, some historical men to name something [What???] "god" by this or any other name (Gott, Theos, Deus, …) My view is that something is perceived or experienced, and then anything similar is called a "god". Accordingly, primordial human history is polytheistic, but eventually one god was elevated as a supreme god or, by analogy with humans, to a pair of supreme gods:Sky and Earth in the old Greek mythology; the Elohim in the Canaanite mythology or in Genesis-1; and so forth. The Sky, especially the stormy Sky, is an EVIDENT superhuman power...……., a great god. Since you hadn't quoted what I wrote, I didn't get a notification of your reply, so I only saw it now.
You're making a distinction which is perfectly logical, between what makes one want to believe in God, and the belief in God himself. My point is that people do not have a clear concept of God, and that whenever they would try to formulate it, they would refer to their reasons for believing in him. Meaning, their reasons for believing in God IS their definition of God.
Five steps towards a definition of God:
1. I want to believe that "something" makes sure of that good triumphs over evil 2. There is something that makes sure of that good triumphs over evil 3. That something must have a will, and hence consciousness 4. That something must be all powerful
Ergo:
5. God is an all powerful being that allows good to triumph over evil.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 31, 2019 14:57:09 GMT
There's no concepts at all. It's possible to try conceiving Him, but it will be rather mirages, than God Himself.
Apophatic vision of God - that He exists, and He is good. Also, Christianity might add that He's Love. A cataphatic way allows us to presume many other predicates to God.
God is not a mechanical structure, but a living creature. I doubt that the atheists have a good concept (particular or not) about a human being. Having no definitely concepts of the human allows Christianity, Islam and Judaism to stay shoulder to shoulder with the atheism position toward definitions of such things.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Jan 31, 2019 22:20:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prophettom on Feb 2, 2019 18:39:49 GMT
I met God. I have met his fallen ones too. So I don't have a big long write up about it. God is REAL. RELIGIOUS BOOKS KEEP MAN AWAY FROM PEACE! THEY ARE A FEW DEVILS WORKS AND THEY WILL LEAD YOU ASTRAY IF YOU CANT SEE WHY THEY ARE EVIL.
|
|
|
Post by anna1867 on Oct 15, 2020 2:43:29 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. The conclusion is correct, but the premises are incorrect. How can we know something exists if it has no physical properties? A physical property is a characteristic of matter that can be observed and measured without changing the chemical identity of the sample. And to exist means to have objective reality or being. Well, we have the laws of physics which exist, but contain no physical properties. But rather, they manifest themselves in matter and they govern every interaction on earth. So through observation we found these laws to exist. There are many things we couldn’t see before microscopes, NMR, and electron microscopes, such as cells, tastebuds, bacteria, etc. So did they not exist until we saw them using those tools? No, they always existed. We simply didn’t have the means to see them. Sound waves and light waves are another concept that we could feel and see and hear, but had no explanation and did not know they existed as waves. Perhaps we simply don’t have the tools to see God yet. If it took humans thousands of years to discover what we are constituted of and how the phenomena around us work, it would be logical that to find God, an explanation of him, or physical evidence would take a long time. So how do we know something exists if it has no physical properties and doesn’t manifest itself in physical matter? We all have thoughts, and sometimes those thoughts are manifested into actions or words, but often they come and go, but never into fruition. We know thoughts exist because we experience them as a collective whole. It is not a singular experience, but rather shared by all of humanity. We also have scientific evidence to support thoughts with the change in brain waves and electrical activity. Perhaps God can only be known to exist once the human race as a collective has a shared experience of him/her/it. However, if one is a materialist they would say thoughts do not exist because they are abstract, but if one is a dualist they would accept thoughts as existing. In my argument God is not a physical being. If your argument is in order for two things to exist, then they must see/feel/hear/touch/taste each other, then the following argument is a counter example. 1. Sea anemones can’t feel/see/touch/taste/hear air. Sound waves do not know that light waves exist. 2. Two things, physical or nonphysical, can exist simultaneously without seeing/feeling/hearing/touching/tasting each other to exist at the same time. 3. Therefore, God can still exist, whether physical or nonphysical, even if we cannot see/feel/hear/touch/taste him.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Oct 15, 2020 5:51:24 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. The conclusion is correct, but the premises are incorrect. How can we know something exists if it has no physical properties? A physical property is a characteristic of matter that can be observed and measured without changing the chemical identity of the sample. And to exist means to have objective reality or being. Well, we have the laws of physics which exist, but contain no physical properties. But rather, they manifest themselves in matter and they govern every interaction on earth. So through observation we found these laws to exist. There are many things we couldn’t see before microscopes, NMR, and electron microscopes, such as cells, tastebuds, bacteria, etc. So did they not exist until we saw them using those tools? No, they always existed. We simply didn’t have the means to see them. Sound waves and light waves are another concept that we could feel and see and hear, but had no explanation and did not know they existed as waves. Perhaps we simply don’t have the tools to see God yet. If it took humans thousands of years to discover what we are constituted of and how the phenomena around us work, it would be logical that to find God, an explanation of him, or physical evidence would take a long time. So how do we know something exists if it has no physical properties and doesn’t manifest itself in physical matter? We all have thoughts, and sometimes those thoughts are manifested into actions or words, but often they come and go, but never into fruition. We know thoughts exist because we experience them as a collective whole. It is not a singular experience, but rather shared by all of humanity. We also have scientific evidence to support thoughts with the change in brain waves and electrical activity. Perhaps God can only be known to exist once the human race as a collective has a shared experience of him/her/it. However, if one is a materialist they would say thoughts do not exist because they are abstract, but if one is a dualist they would accept thoughts as existing. In my argument God is not a physical being. If your argument is in order for two things to exist, then they must see/feel/hear/touch/taste each other, then the following argument is a counter example. 1. Sea anemones can’t feel/see/touch/taste/hear air. Sound waves do not know that light waves exist. 2. Two things, physical or nonphysical, can exist simultaneously without seeing/feeling/hearing/touching/tasting each other to exist at the same time. 3. Therefore, God can still exist, whether physical or nonphysical, even if we cannot see/feel/hear/touch/taste him. Nicely said. Also we haven't even explored the deepest part of the ocean. Do we know it exists? Yes. But do we know what's there? No. Same with when we go super far into space there's parts we can't see. Do we know it's there? Yes. Can we see what's there? No. So even though we know something exists we can't see it at times too. Like I know you exist but I can't see you. We didn't know cells existed until we invented a microscope. What if something beyond cells exists and we nees to invent more or else we can't see it with a microscope or telescope. There's just so much still out there we may not know. Will we ever know everything there is to know?
|
|
johnbc
Full Member
Roman Catholic
Posts: 110
Likes: 63
Religion: Catholic
Philosophy: Anarcho-capitalist, Anti-communism
|
Post by johnbc on Oct 15, 2020 13:37:19 GMT
The discussion of the evidence for the existence of "some" God can go on indefinitely, and we will always be talking about a mere generic concept, not about God itself. However, proof of THIS God (the Christian one, at least) can be obtained by the scientific study of his ACTION IN THE WORLD, especially by the critical history of miracles and prophecies. The proof of the existence of the TRUE GOD is a scientific-experimental problem, not a problem of mere logic.
At every moment we see new academic discussions about “the existence of God”, which are increasingly sophisticated and meticulous. But not one is seen about miracles and prophecies. Why such an eagerness to prove IN ABSTRACT the existence of Someone who could more easily be known and proven by his CONCRETE ACTIONS in the real world? Is it not because the academic public wants only the "God of philosophers" instead of the God of Abraham?
The miracle of Fatima is the central event of 20th century history. The miracle of Fatima is fundamental to contemporary political science because, as it speaks of the prediction of war, it is a data of analysis. It cannot be dismissed as a subjective belief. There is not one miracle of Fatima, but an incredible succession of miracles. In the very prophecy of Fatima (which, by the way, happened in 1917) She said that Russia would spread its ERRORS throughout the world.
There is this illiterate kid in Ruanda who talked with Jesus, who asked him if he was going to preach the gospel, and he said yes, but with one condition: that he would answer his questions. After that, Vatican investigators went on a trip and after interrogating the boy they saw that he knew as much as a Saint Thomas Aquinas. Research the battle of Lepanto, in which a smaller Christian army defeated the Muslim hordes with the help of Our Lady who guided them to where to throw the cannons of the ships. Our Lady, in Lourdes, Fatima or Garabandal, shows to children the horrors of hell before opening the doors to the divine world. Study the lives of the saints. The testimonies and documents reporting the experience of God are COUNTLESS. Whoever is dishonest chooses to cover their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist, but that doesn't cancel the consequences of having ignored reality.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 5, 2020 20:38:10 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 I have not bothred to scrutinize the logic of the argument, since I noticed that he author takes existence to be a predicate, a quality or property, of a substance. Hume explicitly said that existence is not a predicate. I concour and say, with Plato, that the very word SUBSTANCE means an "existing [real] thing", not a phantom or an image of something. Existence is the very beingness [ousia, essence] of what is. [What in English I called Beingness, I also called it in Greek and in Latin, namely Oysia and Essentia, although these two words were put in an English-language dress/garb. Notice essenCE instead of essenTIA, which in an Italian garb would be essenZA. ["existing substance" is a tautology, and so is "moving runner", and "dropping falling-object.]
|
|
|
Post by karl on Nov 7, 2020 20:10:45 GMT
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 I have not bothred to scrutinize the logic of the argument, since I noticed that he author takes existence to be a predicate, a quality or property, of a substance. Hume explicitly said that existence is not a predicate. I concour and say, with Plato, that the very word SUBSTANCE means an "existing [real] thing", not a phantom or an image of something. Existence is the very beingness [ousia, essence] of what is. [What in English I called Beingness, I also called it in Greek and in Latin, namely Oysia and Essentia, although these two words were put in an English-language dress/garb. Notice essenCE instead of essenTIA, which in an Italian garb would be essenZA. ["existing substance" is a tautology, and so is "moving runner", and "dropping falling-object.]
If I interpret you correctly, then I agree. The statement "God exists", if not qualified as meaning a particular form of existence, is circular. In order to even assert that God exists, God must exist, at the very least in our imagination.
|
|