Slam'n Systems
Veteran Techist Member
- Messages
- 828
- Location
- Albany, NY
I believe in God definitly! I am a so called "Religious Boy" ...I wont get into detail! 
Argument for existence of God
- Thread starter Emily
- Start date
- Status
MusicMakesDaMan
Banned
- Messages
- 105
thank you (see note above about this not being a religious thread)
Aaah *head explodes* too much to reply to...
Ok. First off, the existence of God in the mind but not necessarily in reality was a premise, the very first step. Not exactly a definition, but you can't argue with the premises.
Next, I see how immortality could be a bad thing, but it could also be a good thing. On the other hand, a person could argue that perfection is a negative quality, so the concept of perfection is completely paradoxical. And then there's the difference between existing in reality and living. My desk exists in reality, but it's not alive. God isn't necessarily a living organism, so he can't necessarily die. And since we don't know that God is alive, let's assume for simplicity's sake that he's not alive or dead.
As for your Wookie example, I don't think acting counts as existence. The level that the Wookies exist on is the mind - the actors who played the characters exist in reality. For example, my brother once played God in a play. Does that mean that God exists in reality? Not necessarily. The God as my brother depicted him existed in reality at one point, but now it exists in my mind.
And your remark about this being a logical/mathematical thread, rather than religious: very, very true.
I think what both of you were getting at (Music and Inaris) is that steps 5 and 6 are impossible because of #1. But if you look at the reason for #1, you'll see that it's not just an assumption, but an assumption FOR REDUCTIO. In other words, the proof intends to disprove that assumption. So steps 5 and 6 are showing how #1 is impossible, which is the point of the proof.
As for what Inaris said... I think there might be a typo in step 6. (There were a couple others that I edited... i.e. God can be exist in the mind). I think it should read: "It is false that a being greater than God can exist ONLY in the mind." The rest of it makes a whole lot more sense if you put in that "only".
I think that we're focusing too much on the wording of this proof; I think the concept could be worded a lot better. If the argument were re-worded like this, anyone see any flaws?
For the purposes of the argument, define God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought" - in other words, the perfect being. The assumption to be disproved is that God exists only in the mind, and not necessarily in reality. We also will assume that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone. Since a being that contains all positive properties, including existence in reality, would be greater than a being that contains all positive properties except for existence in reality, God must exist in reality to fit the definition of "that than which nothing greater can be thought."
Ok. First off, the existence of God in the mind but not necessarily in reality was a premise, the very first step. Not exactly a definition, but you can't argue with the premises.
Next, I see how immortality could be a bad thing, but it could also be a good thing. On the other hand, a person could argue that perfection is a negative quality, so the concept of perfection is completely paradoxical. And then there's the difference between existing in reality and living. My desk exists in reality, but it's not alive. God isn't necessarily a living organism, so he can't necessarily die. And since we don't know that God is alive, let's assume for simplicity's sake that he's not alive or dead.
As for your Wookie example, I don't think acting counts as existence. The level that the Wookies exist on is the mind - the actors who played the characters exist in reality. For example, my brother once played God in a play. Does that mean that God exists in reality? Not necessarily. The God as my brother depicted him existed in reality at one point, but now it exists in my mind.
And your remark about this being a logical/mathematical thread, rather than religious: very, very true.
I think what both of you were getting at (Music and Inaris) is that steps 5 and 6 are impossible because of #1. But if you look at the reason for #1, you'll see that it's not just an assumption, but an assumption FOR REDUCTIO. In other words, the proof intends to disprove that assumption. So steps 5 and 6 are showing how #1 is impossible, which is the point of the proof.
As for what Inaris said... I think there might be a typo in step 6. (There were a couple others that I edited... i.e. God can be exist in the mind). I think it should read: "It is false that a being greater than God can exist ONLY in the mind." The rest of it makes a whole lot more sense if you put in that "only".
I think that we're focusing too much on the wording of this proof; I think the concept could be worded a lot better. If the argument were re-worded like this, anyone see any flaws?
For the purposes of the argument, define God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought" - in other words, the perfect being. The assumption to be disproved is that God exists only in the mind, and not necessarily in reality. We also will assume that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone. Since a being that contains all positive properties, including existence in reality, would be greater than a being that contains all positive properties except for existence in reality, God must exist in reality to fit the definition of "that than which nothing greater can be thought."
Ken Masters
In Runtime
- Messages
- 354
Well I didn't read this whole thread because I'm sick and tired of debating the existence of God.
Emily, for those of us who think outside the confines of normal methodology, we can not find logic in these statements. Think of this...
Physical reality is a subset of the realm of symbols and concepts - thus the Egyptian idea which found its way into Gospel of John: In the beginning was the word Logos. The Greek term Logos refers to a thought or concept. Contrary to common sense, conceptual thoughts are of a higher order than physical reality. The 'reality' perceived by our five senses is only an expression, or interpretation, of Logos forced upon us by the machine called the 'brain' - just as the Church have been forcing people to accept unconditionally its dogmatic interpretations of the Scriptures. This state of being force fed interpretations is analogous to being confined to a prison. What separates most people from geniuses is the ability and the determination to rebel against the bottlenecking 'Interpreter' in order to do ones' own thinking/interpreting.
Emily, for those of us who think outside the confines of normal methodology, we can not find logic in these statements. Think of this...
Physical reality is a subset of the realm of symbols and concepts - thus the Egyptian idea which found its way into Gospel of John: In the beginning was the word Logos. The Greek term Logos refers to a thought or concept. Contrary to common sense, conceptual thoughts are of a higher order than physical reality. The 'reality' perceived by our five senses is only an expression, or interpretation, of Logos forced upon us by the machine called the 'brain' - just as the Church have been forcing people to accept unconditionally its dogmatic interpretations of the Scriptures. This state of being force fed interpretations is analogous to being confined to a prison. What separates most people from geniuses is the ability and the determination to rebel against the bottlenecking 'Interpreter' in order to do ones' own thinking/interpreting.
This is all the proof I need...
"It is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [as the babelfish] could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes somewhat like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I'm nothing.'
'But,' said man, 'the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't, q.e.d.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that.' And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"It is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [as the babelfish] could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes somewhat like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I'm nothing.'
'But,' said man, 'the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't, q.e.d.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that.' And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
To KenMasters:
So... you're calling yourself a genius?
If by "for those of us who think outside the confines of normal methodology, we can not find logic in these statements" you mean that the argument doesn't make sense to you, read it again. Read it the way I re-worded it a few posts up. It makes sense if you think about it enough, and on the surface, it's logical. You're not the first person for centuries to come along who thinks "outside the confines of normal methodology", and no one was able to refute it for centuries.
I agree that existence in reality is not an easy concept to define, but the definition of reality doesn't have to be consistent from reader to reader, as long as each reader defines it consistently throughout their own interpretation of the proof. For example, if you said that being made out of chocolate is a positive quality and you defined existence in reality as made out of chocolate, the conclusion would be that God is made out of chocolate.
To Inaris:
Hahaha. My brother's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fanatic and you wouldn't believe the number of times he's brought that excerpt up while arguing this exact subject.
So... you're calling yourself a genius?
If by "for those of us who think outside the confines of normal methodology, we can not find logic in these statements" you mean that the argument doesn't make sense to you, read it again. Read it the way I re-worded it a few posts up. It makes sense if you think about it enough, and on the surface, it's logical. You're not the first person for centuries to come along who thinks "outside the confines of normal methodology", and no one was able to refute it for centuries.
I agree that existence in reality is not an easy concept to define, but the definition of reality doesn't have to be consistent from reader to reader, as long as each reader defines it consistently throughout their own interpretation of the proof. For example, if you said that being made out of chocolate is a positive quality and you defined existence in reality as made out of chocolate, the conclusion would be that God is made out of chocolate.
To Inaris:
Hahaha. My brother's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fanatic and you wouldn't believe the number of times he's brought that excerpt up while arguing this exact subject.
Every time I read this something sticks out... I just can't grab it yet...
There is still nothing that says if something greater than god exists in the mind, it must exist in reality. The real problem I see is that God is the Variable and you can't say that the Variable has a Definite Value. That is the nature of the Variable. It's flexible. Given the Definition of God, even something greater, is still god. So in essence, God is god, no matter what the applied additions are. The Proof doesn't work since you can't use a vaiable function in it. I think that is where the Failure is...
If you say 5+5+x=1000 then the Variable is just a value...
well, maybe... Need to think about this some more.
Saying that God is a variable doesn't really do much. If you look at God as a variable, then the proof shows that the value of God exists in reality if it exists in the mind.
No, but the idea is that since God exists in the mind as the greatest possible being, then he must exist in reality to fit that definition. In other words, if a being with all of God's properties existed only in the mind, it wouldn't be God.
No, but the idea is that since God exists in the mind as the greatest possible being, then he must exist in reality to fit that definition. In other words, if a being with all of God's properties existed only in the mind, it wouldn't be God.
Ken Masters
In Runtime
- Messages
- 354
Inaris said:
Ahhhh.... You people drive me nuts. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.
Evolution is a science. It' based on fact. Just because someone believes in evolution doesn't mean they have no faith.
Ken Masters
In Runtime
- Messages
- 354
Emily said:To KenMasters:
So... you're calling yourself a genius?
If by "for those of us who think outside the confines of normal methodology, we can not find logic in these statements" you mean that the argument doesn't make sense to you, read it again. Read it the way I re-worded it a few posts up. It makes sense if you think about it enough, and on the surface, it's logical. You're not the first person for centuries to come along who thinks "outside the confines of normal methodology", and no one was able to refute it for centuries.
I agree that existence in reality is not an easy concept to define, but the definition of reality doesn't have to be consistent from reader to reader, as long as each reader defines it consistently throughout their own interpretation of the proof. For example, if you said that being made out of chocolate is a positive quality and you defined existence in reality as made out of chocolate, the conclusion would be that God is made out of chocolate.
I'm by far no genius, I just haven't been brought up in a Christian society. My beliefs are purely my own, not having been influcenced by anyone.
You just proved my point. You said: " reality doesn't have to be consistent from reader to reader ". If there is no constant, on the definition of reality, among all of us, you can not begin to find logic in those statements.
- Status
Similar threads
