Argument for existence of God

[MusicMakesDaMan]

p.s. - this doesn't Disprove the theory that God exists, just by this proof....

 

[Emily]

Okay.....see # 7 SAYS that it disproves the Reductio....but it can't becase the reductio no longer applies as your difinitive makes no sense.....

Er, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. But if you're trying to say what I think you're trying to say, #7 says that it is false that God exists in the mind but not necessarily in reality - in other words, God DOES exist in reality.

by #5 you've disproven your starting point, making the whole proof useless...

As I've said before, it refers to God as an entity that doesn't exist in reality, so if something that had all of God's properties plus existence in reality, that being would be God and not the being that didn't exist in reality.

see the whole Proof is set up wrong....You can't disprove your reductio if your reductio's "parameters" (the difinitive) don't mean anything....you have no starting point to what "God" is supposed to be so what does it matter whether or not it exists in real world, it's undefined and completely arguementative at that point....

Except for the fact that it's clearly defined at the beginning of the proof.

You're nitpicking the wording of the proof. Rewrite it yourself or read it the way I reworded it a while back. The flaw is in the logic, not the phrasing.

as for the wookie thing, it was simply separating the preconcieved notion that "existence" does not mean "alive" or even "real"....it simply means that they exist, they "be". See, the fact that we can both converse on the subject of "Wookies" means they exist (whether "in the mind" or otherwise)...so yes they certainly exist, regardless of the "Actors" or whatever....see this concept of "god" (for this proof's purpose) could've not "existed" untill the person raises the proof (let's say that he/she was the 1st person to conceive of "god")

Yeah, the wookies exist in the mind, and they can be represented by actors. But they don't exist in reality.

so that means that we have to assume this definition is what we are supposing is concrete...in order to leap off of to other conclusions, but by disproving your definition (NOT your reductio) the proof is over, it doesn't work

You're misunderstanding the proof. It doesn't disprove the definition, it says that God would not fit that definition unless he existed in reality. Again, you're nitpicking the wording of the proof and that's not where the problem is.

 

[Shakie]

The only statement that matters is the first one:

God exists in the mind but not reality.

The rest of the argument FOR the existence of God stems from there. With the end and deffinitive argument of:

Hence God exists in reality.

Everyone is trying to rationalize each point, when the goal is to disprove "God exists in reality."

I believe in God, but here is the dis-proof (from my stand-point) of this argument.

1. God exists in the mind but not reality.

2. Reality in the mind is imagination.

3. Imagination is not reality.

4. Hence God does not exist in reality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take it for what it's worth.

I could have misunderstood the whole exercise.

 

[Emily]

Everyone is trying to rationalize each point, when the goal is to disprove "God exists in reality."

Well-said.

[Edit: On second thought, I'm not quite sure I agree with you on that. The goal is to disprove the logic used to come to the conclusion that "God exists in reality." But the proof that you wrote below does that so... yeah.]

1. God exists in the mind but not reality.

2. Reality in the mind is imagination.

3. Imagination is not reality.

4. Hence God does not exist in reality.

In a sense I agree with this. The problem that I see with the logic of the original proof is that the mind and reality are not necessarily related. Imagining something and saying that one of the characteristics of this thing in your mind is existence in reality doesn't mean you can reach out and touch it.

For example, I can imagine a pink elephant in my mind and say that this pink elephant exists in reality, but that doesn't mean that it does exist in reality.

 

[Shakie]

I see what you are saying, but don't understand this statement:

The problem that I see with the logic of the original proof is that the mind and reality are not necessarily related.

Without the mind, there would be no reality. So they are linked in any essence.

What I mean is, if your mind is dead, then you are essentially dead and can not exist in life with reality. (ie. you do not feel or hear or see....) Assuming that reality means, tangable objects.

Did I mis-understand you Emily?

 

[Emily]

That's true, I should have been clearer on that. What I meant is that the mind and reality are not so closely related that ideas in the mind transfer to reality. The pink elephant in my head doesn't exist in reality just because I imagine that it exists in reality.

 

[Shakie]

Gotcha.

 

[Ken Masters]

Finally to Ken Masters.....it's obvious to us that you weren't raised in a Christian society by this,

"A Christian cannot try to prove the existence of God because he does not believe in fact or science."
- What a completely unintelligent, uninformed statement.....

Wait a minute... did I say that... Oops... I live Vancovuer, B.C. It is mainly a Christian society. I spose what I mean to say I was brought up by a family to believe in my own interpretations. There was no influence from any outsider to side me on either Evolution or Religion.

And no that was not an unintelligent, uniformed statement... Prove is defined with the use fact/science... these two factors do not apply to Christian logic. As Guy stated, all you need is faith, not proof of the existence of God. Therefore a Christian does not use logic/proof as their notion for the existence of God, you only need faith.

 

[Ken Masters]

The problem that I see with the logic of the original proof is that the mind and reality are not necessarily related. Imagining something and saying that one of the characteristics of this thing in your mind is existence in reality doesn't mean you can reach out and touch it.

For example, I can imagine a pink elephant in my mind and say that this pink elephant exists in reality, but that doesn't mean that it does exist in reality.

Holy Moly! Is not what I said earlier... Geez... You people drive me mad! Emily you are flip flopping and be bopping all over the place.

 

[Ken Masters]

Well first wouldn't you have to distinguish reality from thought (state of mind). Who can determine which is which? We would then also have to prove either reality (our own existence) and what we perceive to be thought. Then we can move on to proving God. To believe something exists or does not is such a primitive notion. So who ever wrote those points is not very intelligent.

There is see... If you would have only listened you would have realized how frivolous this whole thread is.

I have spent countless hours depating Evolution over Religion... the bottom line is, you never come to a conclusion because Evolution is based on fact/science and Religion is based on thought/spirituality and these two worlds have not yet been bridged my mankind.