Proof of God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Dark Matter
Posts: 1332
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » March 8th, 2018, 1:25 pm

Redundancy is evidence of confusion. This is what Spectrum is really saying:

P1. Perfection is an empirical impossibility.
P2. God is perfect.
C. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Theism generally agrees with P1.
A finite mind cannot know what perfection entails.
Therefore, ‘C’ is false.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands » March 8th, 2018, 5:07 pm

Philosch wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 11:26 am
I do think it's time mankind matures beyond such primitive notions but we need to progress farther in the neurosciences to win the final battle.
The key to the battle isn't going to be found using micro vision but rather it is in the synthesis of understanding the whole.
Philosch wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 11:26 am
I think on the other hand it's far easier to disprove the existence of a particular or specific god like the god of the bible. There you have a much better chance.
It's far easier to be ignorant than educated.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm

jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 3:23 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 2:29 am
Whatever laws of nature [empirical] you can think of or understand cannot be absolute perfection because they are conditioned by humans.
Since they are conditioned [empirically] they cannot be absolute perfection, i.e. totally unconditional.

The issue is you are wrong in taking 'the laws that govern things that we see in nature' as absolute perfection. Note Newton's Laws, Einstein's Law re Relativity.. etc. are all human made laws. They cannot be absolutely perfect Laws.
Any accepted theorem is a mere reflection and therefore incomplete. You seem to be arguing God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?
Note you were the one who mentioned God's Laws of Nature.
The only Nature Laws is the one that must involved humans.
How else can you determined what is God's Law of Nature?

My main argument is NOT "God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?"
My main points are;
  • 1. DNA wise all humans has the potential for an existential crisis where it is very active subliminally in the majority.
    2. To deal with the above internal psychological turmoil, the majority idealized [conjure] and reified the idea of God.
    3. But the idea of God MUST be absolutely perfect.
    4. Logically and practically, absolute perfection is impossible to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
So my approach is not "God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?"

Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 2:29 am
Whatever shape you assign for the earth, the moon, the sun, the planets , etc. they are all human made, i.e. conceptualized in the mind.

Is the moon perfectly round?
Nah the moon surface is full or craters thus not a smooth surface.
An empirical perfect circle is defined by certain measurements.
Note empirical perfection is not absolute perfection.
Therefore a perfect round moon must satisfy the definition of a perfect circle at every possible points on the surface of the moon.
Thus it is impossible to have such a empirical related perfection, what more to claim for absolute perfection of the moon.

Even at the micro level,
Electrons are conditioned by observation, e.g. the Wave Function Collapse.

Think harder... there are no absolute perfection in the empirical-rational reality.

Before you make any claim of absolute perfection, justify why that thing is of absolute perfection, just don't make claims based on superficial thinking.
What you fail to see is the harmony. What you perceive as imperfections may indeed be part of the balance.

Unfortunately for you, the concept of "harmony" is based on the Laws of Nature, the theories of Physics and other Sciences which are all interdependent with humans, thus conditional.

Why you are defending the indefensible is due to 1 & 2 above.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » March 8th, 2018, 9:52 pm

Philosch wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 11:26 am
To Spectrum:

I will accept your word "absolute" as a distinguishing characteristic of one notion of god. Be careful though as the eastern religions I don't believe view gods the same was as the occidental religions or what you call the "Abrahamic" religions.
Hinduism the other major religion is more serious with God = Absolute.
(Abrahamic + Hinduism = 5+ billion of total 7+ billion - this is significant)
Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the 'acharyas' of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute.
Link:
I still have an issue with perfection as being primary although I would agree that it's certainly important in some traditions.
As I mentioned what is critical is Absolute Perfection, where the critical term is 'Absolute'.
Lastly I would agree totally with Kant in that I think it is an impossibility to either prove or disprove the existence of the "god" that the commonly accepted term refers to. That is why I think the igtheist position is the most rationally tenable. I may strongly believe that no such creator exists but as the "god of the gaps" argument demonstrates, there will always be the dark corner in the room where the notion of a transcendent perfect(as you suggest) being resides, and thus can't ever be ruled out completely.
When we argue on the basis of why God MUST BE absolute perfection, then it is impossible within empirical-rational reality.

The speculation of God cannot be ruled out completely only if theists claim their God has empirical elements, e.g. with anthropomorphic elements like "a bearded man in the sky"
or anything with empirically possible elements.
This is why people like Dawkins provided a probability of 1/7 God may exists because his approach is empirical and because he is not a philosopher.

But philosophically and by default God MUST BE an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God than which no greater can exists. I have argued extensively on this premise.
I think proving "god" as an impossibility can be undone but simply altering definitions to allow "god" to occupy the space beyond the reach of our own knowledge. That is what seems to happen on this forum in every one of these "does god exist" discussions.
True but no normal thinking theists will one such a God that occupy space and time. I have argued such a God will potentially be dominated by a greater God who can force one's God to eat sh1t.
I am in total agreement with your concerns about such beliefs and I do think it's time mankind matures beyond such primitive notions but we need to progress farther in the neurosciences to win the final battle. I think on the other hand it's far easier to disprove the existence of a particular or specific god like the god of the bible. There you have a much better chance.
As stated the concern is with the absolutely perfect God as in the Bible, Hinduism and other - with Islamic God above all else.
I am not too concern with the lesser empirically linked gods, e.g. monkey god, elephant God, Neptune [sea], Eros [love], etc. They are not a serious threat to humanity at all.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » March 8th, 2018, 9:54 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 1:25 pm
Redundancy is evidence of confusion. This is what Spectrum is really saying:

P1. Perfection is an empirical impossibility.
P2. God is perfect.
C. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Theism generally agrees with P1.
A finite mind cannot know what perfection entails.
Therefore, ‘C’ is false.
The above is a straw man and do not represent my syllogism at all.

The term is 'absolute perfection' where 'absolute' is the critical term.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands » March 8th, 2018, 10:40 pm

Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 3:23 am

Any accepted theorem is a mere reflection and therefore incomplete. You seem to be arguing God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?
Note you were the one who mentioned God's Laws of Nature.
The only Nature Laws is the one that must involved humans.
How else can you determined what is God's Law of Nature?
So yes, any reflection man has on anything is a result of man in that it comes from his expression of something. The more widely accepted a notion is the more it becomes known as fact.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
My main argument is NOT "God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?"
My main points are;

1. DNA wise all humans has the potential for an existential crisis where it is very active subliminally in the majority.
I don't understand what you're saying here so would you elaborate.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
2. To deal with the above internal psychological turmoil, the majority idealized [conjure] and reified the idea of God.
Well, this is your speculation. The question is whether or not man was ever truly in the presence of God.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
3. But the idea of God MUST be absolutely perfect.
So.. define form me 'granite' so that I know it.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
4. Logically and practically, absolute perfection is impossible to be real within an empirical-rational reality.[/list]
Back to this conclusion which I see as being ill-logical without realization that empirical is through observation and rational impies in some form you can relate to. To make know certain concepts is easier to some than others because there may be common ground, a relation that is pre-existing. To make new connections isn't always easy. I'm not arguing an empirical-rational reality doesn't exist nor that reality shouldn't include everything it just really is a subjective matter of perspective. e.g., My perspective of Man is that man is the crown of creation and that in man lay all the functions and expressions of nature. You don't have that perspective but I think that if you look you will see that things have to make sense to you for you to accept them.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
So my approach is not "God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?"
What you fail to see is the harmony. What you perceive as imperfections may indeed be part of the balance.

Unfortunately for you, the concept of "harmony" is based on the Laws of Nature, the theories of Physics and other Sciences which are all interdependent with humans, thus conditional.

Why you are defending the indefensible is due to 1 & 2 above.
That which exists in expressed by man in attempts to relate to it. Because we express some notion does not conclude we invent that notion but simply that it is something we touch upon.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Dark Matter
Posts: 1332
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » March 8th, 2018, 10:51 pm

Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:54 pm
Dark Matter wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 1:25 pm
Redundancy is evidence of confusion. This is what Spectrum is really saying:

P1. Perfection is an empirical impossibility.
P2. God is perfect.
C. Therefore God is an impossibility.

Theism generally agrees with P1.
A finite mind cannot know what perfection entails.
Therefore, ‘C’ is false.
The above is a straw man and do not represent my syllogism at all.

The term is 'absolute perfection' where 'absolute' is the critical term.
It perfectly represents what you said. :P

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am

jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 10:40 pm
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
My main argument is NOT "God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?"
My main points are;

1. DNA wise all humans has the potential for an existential crisis where it is very active subliminally in the majority.
I don't understand what you're saying here so would you elaborate.
DNA wise all humans are mortal.
DNA wise all humans will and are aware of their mortality.
Since ALL humans do not want to die prematurely, the awareness of one's inevitable mortality created a cognitive dissonance which generate an existential crisis at the subliminal level -an internal psychological turmoil.
This is why the critical element within theism and religion is about the after-life and that is what your Egyptian pyramids are centered on.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
2. To deal with the above internal psychological turmoil, the majority idealized [conjure] and reified the idea of God.
Well, this is your speculation. The question is whether or not man was ever truly in the presence of God.
How can you insist so positively of God when you have not even prove it exists as real.

On the other hand, what I argued is so true.
It is a fact theists believed in a God that is idealized and reified - they put such ideas as a basis for a religion and SOME kill those who criticize their illusory God. Just imagine that, millions of innocent people are killed by theists who believed in something illusory-as-real.
If you are a theist, you are indirectly complicit to such terrible evils and violence.

God has not be proven to been real within an empirical-rational reality, so it has to be idealized and reified. How else?
So it is you who is speculating!
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
3. But the idea of God MUST be absolutely perfect.
So.. define form me 'granite' so that I know it.
[/quote]
Cannot understand what this is about?
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
4. Logically and practically, absolute perfection is impossible to be real within an empirical-rational reality.[/list]
Back to this conclusion which I see as being ill-logical without realization that empirical is through observation and rational impies in some form you can relate to.
To make know certain concepts is easier to some than others because there may be common ground, a relation that is pre-existing.
To make new connections isn't always easy.
I'm not arguing an empirical-rational reality doesn't exist nor that reality shouldn't include everything it just really is a subjective matter of perspective. e.g., My perspective of Man is that man is the crown of creation and that in man lay all the functions and expressions of nature. You don't have that perspective but I think that if you look you will see that things have to make sense to you for you to accept them.
[/quote]Whatever perspective you hold, you must justify it.
I cannot grasp your point here.
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
So my approach is not "God doesn't exist because man is incapable of expressing Gods existence?"
Unfortunately for you, the concept of "harmony" is based on the Laws of Nature, the theories of Physics and other Sciences which are all interdependent with humans, thus conditional.
Why you are defending the indefensible is due to 1 & 2 above.
That which exists in expressed by man in attempts to relate to it. Because we express some notion does not conclude we invent that notion but simply that it is something we touch upon.
Note your basis of reality is Philosophical Realism;
Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
My basis is Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is interdependent with humans. Therefore there is no such thing as anything or a God that is absolutely independent of humans.
Note this thread I raised;
You Are a Co-Creator of Reality.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Philosch
Posts: 427
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch » March 9th, 2018, 12:16 pm

To jerlands:

Your last statement to me is a non-sequitur even if it is true.

To Spectrum:

I think we are in agreement for the most part but with just one clarification. The igtheist position I maintain is this; If god is defined as that which caused creation but is outside of creation, and we can never exist outside of this creation because our consciousness is completely bounded by it, then the term "god" represents something that would be forever be unknowable or improvable. If on the other hand the term god refers to something that has some empirical characteristics then it would be either provable or disprovable. I think that the more common, parochial or traditional understanding of what god is, is disprovable as you claim. To me, the 'god of the gaps" argument eventually comes down to the first case where I simply insist that god is beyond the reach of empiricism because he's beyond this universal creation, outside it somehow. The people who support such an argument don't realize that by going down this path they place their god in a realm they could never know.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1332
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » March 9th, 2018, 12:34 pm

Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
My basis is Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is interdependent with humans. Therefore there is no such thing as anything or a God that is absolutely independent of humans.
You sure have a strange and divisive way of saying you’re a panentheist.

Steve3007
Posts: 5397
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Proof of God

Post by Steve3007 » March 9th, 2018, 1:55 pm

Pan-en-theism = Everything is in God.

So the universe is everything we can ever possibly know about. Not just the stuff we know about now, but the stuff we might in principle know about in future but don't know about yet. And that is deemed to be a subset of a bigger set, which is referred to as God. That bigger set includes the stuff we can't ever know about, even in principle. But although we can't ever know about it, even in principle, we know that it's there.

Regarding the stuff that is a member of the superset but not of the subset: Can we pray to it?

Dark Matter
Posts: 1332
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » March 9th, 2018, 4:44 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:55 pm
Pan-en-theism = Everything is in God.

So the universe is everything we can ever possibly know about. Not just the stuff we know about now, but the stuff we might in principle know about in future but don't know about yet. And that is deemed to be a subset of a bigger set, which is referred to as God. That bigger set includes the stuff we can't ever know about, even in principle. But although we can't ever know about it, even in principle, we know that it's there.

Regarding the stuff that is a member of the superset but not of the subset: Can we pray to it?
God begins by chiding Abraham, "If it wasn't for Me, you wouldn't exist." After a moment of thoughtful reflection, Abraham respectfully replies, "Yes, Lord, and for that I am very appreciative and grateful. However, if it wasn't for me, You wouldn't be known."

Dark Matter
Posts: 1332
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » March 9th, 2018, 4:54 pm

Self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness: God and man, Creator and creature, part and Whole.

Dark Matter
Posts: 1332
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Proof of God

Post by Dark Matter » March 9th, 2018, 6:58 pm

Dark Matter wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 12:34 pm
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
My basis is Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is interdependent with humans. Therefore there is no such thing as anything or a God that is absolutely independent of humans.
You sure have a strange and divisive way of saying you’re a panentheist.
I misspoke: Spectrum a pantheist.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands » March 9th, 2018, 7:01 pm

Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 10:40 pm

I don't understand what you're saying here so would you elaborate.
DNA wise all humans are mortal.
DNA wise all humans will and are aware of their mortality.
Since ALL humans do not want to die prematurely, the awareness of one's inevitable mortality created a cognitive dissonance which generate an existential crisis at the subliminal level -an internal psychological turmoil.
This is a perspective I hear echoed by others on this board. That the situation creates the reality or what you claim creates the fantasy which is the compensating component for what they're experiencing. I see that as blatantly wrong.
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
This is why the critical element within theism and religion is about the after-life and that is what your Egyptian pyramids are centered on.
Yes, Life after death is very much about the future.
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
Well, this is your speculation. The question is whether or not man was ever truly in the presence of God.
How can you insist so positively of God when you have not even prove it exists as real.
There's enough proof in the world in and through men that speak to me.
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
On the other hand, what I argued is so true.
It is a fact theists believed in a God that is idealized and reified - they put such ideas as a basis for a religion and SOME kill those who criticize their illusory God. Just imagine that, millions of innocent people are killed by theists who believed in something illusory-as-real.
If you are a theist, you are indirectly complicit to such terrible evils and violence.

God has not be proven to been real within an empirical-rational reality, so it has to be idealized and reified. How else?
So it is you who is speculating!
What you claim is your reality. robots don't have souls hence they can't relate to the soul. I think this true of zombies also but I hear things like God's eternal mercy so who knows.
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
3. But the idea of God MUST be absolutely perfect.
jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 10:40 pm
So.. define form me 'granite' so that I know it.
Cannot understand what this is about?
I'm asking you to define something that exists within the realm of empirical-rational reality and manifest it so that it might be known to me.
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 9:29 pm
  • 4. Logically and practically, absolute perfection is impossible to be real within an empirical-rational reality.
jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 10:40 pm
Back to this conclusion which I see as being ill-logical without realization that empirical is through observation and rational impies in some form you can relate to.
To make know certain concepts is easier to some than others because there may be common ground, a relation that is pre-existing.
To make new connections isn't always easy.
I'm not arguing an empirical-rational reality doesn't exist nor that reality shouldn't include everything it just really is a subjective matter of perspective. e.g., My perspective of Man is that man is the crown of creation and that in man lay all the functions and expressions of nature. You don't have that perspective but I think that if you look you will see that things have to make sense to you for you to accept them.
Whatever perspective you hold, you must justify it.
I cannot grasp your point here.
My point is a pearl is developed through time at expense to the suffering of the oyster.
Spectrum wrote:
March 9th, 2018, 1:37 am
jerlands wrote:
March 8th, 2018, 10:40 pm
That which exists in expressed by man in attempts to relate to it. Because we express some notion does not conclude we invent that notion but simply that it is something we touch upon.
Note your basis of reality is Philosophical Realism;
Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
My basis is Philosophical Anti-Realism where reality is interdependent with humans. Therefore there is no such thing as anything or a God that is absolutely independent of humans.
Note this thread I raised;
You Are a Co-Creator of Reality.
In a very real sense we create our perceived reality and our perceived realities can have impact on others. An example is Nazism, a unified belief that ultimately led to a nightmare for all.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Post Reply