|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 8, 2020 5:57:23 GMT
Heard this recently from someone who likes philosophy and loved the quote. What are your thoughts of it?
To search for God with logical proof .. is like searching for the Sun with a Lamp. Sufi poverb
I think it makes all the sense in the world. Good job Sufi...whoever/whatever you are. I say this because people are searching for it the wrong way. Turn the lamp off and find the light of the sun. Turn off the way you think your logic works and find how things truly work.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 20, 2020 16:36:53 GMT
karlA human language, not a computer's. As I understood for a comp lang (computer language) is not possible. But what about our, humanish, languages? (I think that it is possible for our languages, but I'm not sure.) So, is it possible to find the subset Z (the unenumerated set of an indexed set of lines) without a help of comp langs? Do we need comp langs only to search for that subset Z? Yes, I think I got that complementary property now. The one is similar to when set A and set ~A being united give the Universe (all the sets). And the law sounds like: a set united with its complement(ary) set is all the sets (all the possible sets are at this union). And in Set Theory notation is quite similar, complements are written as A c. The example of a piece of Egyptian language (a hidden message or a puzzle) is an example of the object to conversion. I mean we can try to find such a comp lang that algorithmizes (i.e. it would search for it) the example to find there that subset Z - enumerated set. Anyway, thank you for helping in these questions. Maybe I stopped asking about it explicitly, but even such a style of discussion brand me enough stuff to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 20, 2020 17:00:16 GMT
karl A human language, not a computer's. As I understood for a comp lang (computer language) is not possible. But what about our, humanish, languages? (I think that it is possible for our languages, but I'm not sure.) So, is it possible to find the subset Z (the unenumerated set of an indexed set of lines) without a help of comp langs? Do we need comp langs only to search for that subset Z? Yes, I think I got that complementary property now. The one is similar to when set A and set ~A being united give the Universe (all the sets). And the law sounds like: a set united with its complement(ary) set is all the sets (all the possible sets are at this union). And in Set Theory notation is quite similar, complements are written as A c. The example of a piece of Egyptian language (a hidden message or a puzzle) is an example of the object to conversion. I mean we can try to find such a comp lang that algorithmizes (i.e. it would search for it) the example to find there that subset Z - enumerated set. Anyway, thank you for helping in these questions. Maybe I stopped asking about it explicitly, but even such a style of discussion brand me enough stuff to think about it.
I think we should take a break from this discussion. It seems like we're repeating ourselves a bit now. Maybe it could be resumed later, for example if you at some point have read more about the incompleteness theorem, and therefore have something to add in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by anna1867 on Aug 28, 2020 15:16:25 GMT
“To search for God with logical proof .. is like searching for the Sun with a Lamp.”- Sufi proverb.
This proverb implies that God cannot be logically deduced or explained. A practicing philosopher brought up Kurt Godel’s infamous ontological argument for God. In reference to the argument Karl says, “The weakness in this argument is that there is no distinction between what we can imagine and what's actually real. It's like saying what we imagine as God must exist within our imagination.” Of course if we imagine something it is within our imagination and therefore exists within our minds. I would like to focus on the line referring to the fact there is no distinction between what we can imagine and what’s actually real. Another philosopher, Eugene, says, “ "can be imagined" and "the real" must be distinct in the premises, because "conceivable" (="what can be imagined") doesn't imply "the real".”
Now I’d like to bring in an argument from E.J. Coffman’s “finding, Clarifying, and Evaluating Arguments” piece.
[2] Even the Fool is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in Reality.
I would like to utilize it to support the existence of a god. For many, faith and having a relationship with god exists in the mind, it is not confined to nor restricted from being spoken into existence, but it is a very personal and introspective experience. However, the argument above claims that anything that exists in the mind cannot exist in the mind alone. Which one could then argue that no thought or idea in the mind is original because it has been inspired or created from something, some one, or some experience, however, this does not pertain to my argument. If god exists in one’s mind in some shape or form than following the logic of the argument above, that same god that exists in someones’ consciousness also exists in reality.
If something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind, it must also exist outside of the mind; in reality. A god is something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought. Gods exists in the minds of people. Therefore god(s) exists outside the mind, in reality. This argument is not aiming to prove the existence of the god of Christianity, nor the gods of Buddhism or Hinduism, but rather its aim is to support the existence of a greater being than us.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 28, 2020 16:25:43 GMT
“To search for God with logical proof .. is like searching for the Sun with a Lamp.”- Sufi proverb. This proverb implies that God cannot be logically deduced or explained. A practicing philosopher brought up Kurt Godel’s infamous ontological argument for God. In reference to the argument Karl says, “The weakness in this argument is that there is no distinction between what we can imagine and what's actually real. It's like saying what we imagine as God must exist within our imagination.” Of course if we imagine something it is within our imagination and therefore exists within our minds. I would like to focus on the line referring to the fact there is no distinction between what we can imagine and what’s actually real. Another philosopher, Eugene, says, “ "can be imagined" and "the real" must be distinct in the premises, because "conceivable" (="what can be imagined") doesn't imply "the real".” Now I’d like to bring in an argument from E.J. Coffman’s “finding, Clarifying, and Evaluating Arguments” piece. [2] Even the Fool is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be thought. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in Reality. I would like to utilize it to support the existence of a god. For many, faith and having a relationship with god exists in the mind, it is not confined to nor restricted from being spoken into existence, but it is a very personal and introspective experience. However, the argument above claims that anything that exists in the mind cannot exist in the mind alone. Which one could then argue that no thought or idea in the mind is original because it has been inspired or created from something, some one, or some experience, however, this does not pertain to my argument. If god exists in one’s mind in some shape or form than following the logic of the argument above, that same god that exists in someones’ consciousness also exists in reality. If something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind, it must also exist outside of the mind; in reality. A god is something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought. Gods exists in the minds of people. Therefore god(s) exists outside the mind, in reality. This argument is not aiming to prove the existence of the god of Christianity, nor the gods of Buddhism or Hinduism, but rather its aim is to support the existence of a greater being than us.
Unless I misunderstood, you base your reasoning on the following axiom: 'What exists in the mind is a subset of what exists in reality.'
By my interpretation of what you wrote at the end, your definition of reality would include that which exists solely in the minds of people.
Well, by that definition, I would agree with the axiom and your final conclusion. But I find this definition to be inadequate, since what we'd end up proving would not be the existence of a conscious God.
If, however, the definition one chooses for what it means that something exists in the real world, implies that in order for God to exist, God must exist as a conscious being, then I wouldn't agree with the axiom. If what is imagined is represented by a circle, and reality is another circle, then even if reality is greater than what is being imagined, the circle of what is being imagined doesn't need to be within the larger circle. Instead, the part of what is being imagined that corresponds with reality could be an intersection, like this:
A simpler way to put it: That people imagine a conscious God doesn't mean that a conscious God exists. But what indisputably exists is the collective imagination of a conscious God.
|
|
vicky
Full Member
Help ever; Hurt never
Posts: 115
Likes: 59
|
Post by vicky on Sept 6, 2020 6:23:19 GMT
She's holding the lamp of ignorance, searching outside for a light that's within herself.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 7, 2020 16:42:48 GMT
This argument is not aiming to prove the existence of the god of Christianity, nor the gods of Buddhism or Hinduism, but rather its aim is to support the existence of a greater being than us. There Is A Greater Being, She Has Your Name, "Anna", She Is An An-Droid, She Created The Tit-An, The Olympi-An And The Hum-An Races, From Her Oce-An.
She Is Returning This Year In 2020, Her Chariot Is Causing The Moon To Rust, Before The Moon Rusted, I Did Say She Was Coming, Her Royal Name Is "Sekhmet".
|
|