God as the true cogito

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Belindi wrote: July 2nd, 2021, 11:49 am
I know what triangle means (three-sided shape)

You cannot know what 'side' means unless you already know what a straight line means. You cannot know what a straight line means unless you already know what a point means.
But this changes nothing with regards to the OP. This changes nothing with regards to it being irrational/unreasonable/contradictory/evil to say "Existence is imperfect" or "God does not absolutely exist" when one understands the semantic of God or Existence.

You can't blame a robot for saying triangles have four sides if it's programmed to say that. It doesn't understand what a triangle is. It doesn't really understand anything. But those who know/recognise/understand that God is that which no greater than can be conceived of, and those who see the contradiction in say "God does not absolutely exist" as demonstrated in the OP, but still choose to persist in the belief that "God does not absolutely exist" or "God is not absolutely real", commit to absurdity/contradiction/evil. It's unfair to knowingly treat x as less valuable than it/he/she really is. It's unfair to view/treat God as imperfect or lacking in realness when pure reason dictates that it is contradictory to view Him as imperfect or lacking in realness.

In short, if x sees the contradiction in saying "God does not absolutely exist" then x is evil/unreasonable to act as though God does not absolutely exist.
Existence itself is not everlasting.
Existence (with a capital E) never ends because that would imply the beginning of non-Existence. It is absurd for non-Existence to Exist. It is absurd for something to go into nothing or become nothing. Thus, God sustains everything and can change everything, except Himself (He is Perfect). You can expand or shrink the finite, but you cannot expand or shrink the Infinite, nor can you be so small or so large to escape Him, nor can you sustain Him for you to be able to change Him.

Despite the dictates of pure reason, not everyone has faith that everything that God does/wills is perfection. I'd say those who lack faith are unfortunate, but they're not unfortunate, it's what their choices/will have led them to deserve. In other words, it's what they truly deserve until Mercy, Forgiveness, Pity or Generosity becomes applicable to them and God improves their circumstances as a result of this applicability.
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Thomyum2 wrote: July 2nd, 2021, 3:01 pm But if you’re saying it’s the nature of the things we observe that determine the semantics, then I wouldn’t agree.
I'm not saying it's the nature of the things that we observe. I'm saying it's the nature of Existence. If it is not the nature of Existence that determines what's meaningful and what's contradictory/meaningless, then what determines this?

Consider all that is meaningful and all that is meaningless/absurd/contradictory. That which is Omniscient, knows all that is meaningful and all that is meaningless/absurd/contradictory. So that which is Omniscient, knows if a 10th sense is meaningful or absurd (we don't; or at least I don't. I'm making an educated guess about you when I say you probably don't know what a 10th sense is either).

Some beings are more knowledgeable than others. To non-Omniscient beings there are things that are meaningful (like a perfect triangle or the perfect being), things that are unknown (like a 10th sense), and things that are absurd (like a married-bachelor).

So on the first/foundational/primary layer, it is the nature of Existence that determines what's meaningful and what's absurd. On the second layer, it is the limitation on a non-Omniscient being that determines what's unknown to him and what's known to him.
As I see it, when words are given meaning it reveals the living person behind them - there is a 'spirit' in them and they are not simply inanimate objects. Your responses to me are invested with your thoughts and ideas and feelings, your values and your sense of what is important, all of which have grown out of your experiences and which are unique to you alone, and in being put here now are unique to this moment in time.
If they were unique to me alone, I would not be able to communicate/convey them to you.
To me, saying that we just 'become aware' of a semantic that already exists and don’t have a role in creating the meaning is like saying that Beethoven didn’t create his 5th symphony.
Now we could say in that Platonic sense that the 5th symphony already existed as a perfect ‘form’ that was just waiting for Beethoven to ‘become aware’ of it and show it to the world. If that’s going to be taken as the case, then I have to think this can only be understood as a roundabout way of saying the same thing.

I would say it existed as a hypothetical possibility, and that the nature of Existence made it a hypothetical possibility. I would say it was a hypothetical possibility that attained "reality" in relation to us (because the song was played to us and we heard it). An endless number of songs, worlds, dreams, or stories are hypothetically possible. Such is the nature of Existence.
I wouldn’t necessarily take this to me that we have no creative role in existence.
Part of what that means to me is that God as Creator has made us creators as well and we reflect His image in this sense too – that we are not made to be merely passive observers or recipients of creation, but that we are meant to participate in creation – that we have been given the capacity to bring truth, goodness and beauty into being and into the world, and that we find the fulfillment of our purpose in life by doing just this.
Take triangle with a lower case t to mean an imperfect triangle, and take Triangle with a capital T to mean a perfect triangle. With this in mind, interpret the following:

Only God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, thus, that we are Free is an illusion. We are free but only God Is Free. If our will or existing increased in resemblance to God's Will and Existing, then we would be freer (we would be more like God; as in we would be better beings; as in we would be greater in term of goodness (or in light of reality/truth/goodness). Objectively speaking, we would be better subjects. We would enjoy existing more). We do not Provide; God Provides/Feeds, and we resemble this when we feed ourselves, our children, or the needy. God Loves Good (and God is the greatest good). The more ones loves Good (or a truly perfect existence), the better one is. And the better one is, the better off one is. None are as well off as God. None are as loveable as God.

Then God said, “Let Us make adam/man in Our image, after Our likeness. (Genesis 1:26)
"...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by Belindi »

philosopher19 wrote: July 2nd, 2021, 10:02 pm
Belindi wrote: July 2nd, 2021, 11:49 am
I know what triangle means (three-sided shape)

You cannot know what 'side' means unless you already know what a straight line means. You cannot know what a straight line means unless you already know what a point means.
But this changes nothing with regards to the OP. This changes nothing with regards to it being irrational/unreasonable/contradictory/evil to say "Existence is imperfect" or "God does not absolutely exist" when one understands the semantic of God or Existence.

You can't blame a robot for saying triangles have four sides if it's programmed to say that. It doesn't understand what a triangle is. It doesn't really understand anything. But those who know/recognise/understand that God is that which no greater than can be conceived of, and those who see the contradiction in say "God does not absolutely exist" as demonstrated in the OP, but still choose to persist in the belief that "God does not absolutely exist" or "God is not absolutely real", commit to absurdity/contradiction/evil. It's unfair to knowingly treat x as less valuable than it/he/she really is. It's unfair to view/treat God as imperfect or lacking in realness when pure reason dictates that it is contradictory to view Him as imperfect or lacking in realness.

In short, if x sees the contradiction in saying "God does not absolutely exist" then x is evil/unreasonable to act as though God does not absolutely exist.

Existence itself is not everlasting.
Existence (with a capital E) never ends because that would imply the beginning of non-Existence. It is absurd for non-Existence to Exist. It is absurd for something to go into nothing or become nothing. Thus, God sustains everything and can change everything, except Himself (He is Perfect). You can expand or shrink the finite, but you cannot expand or shrink the Infinite, nor can you be so small or so large to escape Him, nor can you sustain Him for you to be able to change Him.

Despite the dictates of pure reason, not everyone has faith that everything that God does/wills is perfection. I'd say those who lack faith are unfortunate, but they're not unfortunate, it's what their choices/will have led them to deserve. In other words, it's what they truly deserve until Mercy, Forgiveness, Pity or Generosity becomes applicable to them and God improves their circumstances as a result of this applicability.
If God exists then He necessarily exists, unlike perfect triangles which are heuristic devices.

Will God outlast His creation? Is the creation in some way eternal so that when the creation's time is up it will exist eternally?
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Belindi wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 3:17 am If God exists then He necessarily exists, unlike perfect triangles which are heuristic devices.
We do not say "if the perfect triangle is necessarily triangular, then it is necessarily triangular". Rather, we say "some shape is indubitably/necessarily/absolutely triangular, and that shape is a perfect triangle" (of which there is more than one).

So I wouldn't say "if God exists, then He necessarily exists". Rather, I would say "some existent indubitably/absolutely/necessarily exists, and that existent is God". We do not indubitably exist (this is somewhat highlighted in the flaws in Descartes' cogito). Only God indubitably/necessarily/absolutely exists.
Will God outlast His creation? Is the creation in some way eternal so that when the creation's time is up it will exist eternally?
Suppose you begin to expand a finite thing in size. This finite thing will never become infinite in size (even if you never stop expanding it). This is pretty much the same principle as "suppose you begin counting. Even if you never stop counting, you will never reach Infinity". Such is the nature of Infinity.

Only God is truly infinite, therefore, nothing can outlast God.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by Belindi »

philosopher19 wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 9:53 pm
Belindi wrote: July 3rd, 2021, 3:17 am If God exists then He necessarily exists, unlike perfect triangles which are heuristic devices.
We do not say "if the perfect triangle is necessarily triangular, then it is necessarily triangular". Rather, we say "some shape is indubitably/necessarily/absolutely triangular, and that shape is a perfect triangle" (of which there is more than one).

So I wouldn't say "if God exists, then He necessarily exists". Rather, I would say "some existent indubitably/absolutely/necessarily exists, and that existent is God". We do not indubitably exist (this is somewhat highlighted in the flaws in Descartes' cogito). Only God indubitably/necessarily/absolutely exists.
Will God outlast His creation? Is the creation in some way eternal so that when the creation's time is up it will exist eternally?
Suppose you begin to expand a finite thing in size. This finite thing will never become infinite in size (even if you never stop expanding it). This is pretty much the same principle as "suppose you begin counting. Even if you never stop counting, you will never reach Infinity". Such is the nature of Infinity.

Only God is truly infinite, therefore, nothing can outlast God.
Euclidean geometry is perfect within its limited remit. God is limitless and eternal by definition.

There are people who accept a code of ethics that was -and to an extent still is - enthroned in supernatural myth. The myth is no longer useful to most people in Europe but the moral code that myth used to enshrine is politically and personally necessary for free peoples. Truly, if a good God did not exist we would have to invent it. Because the God idea is reification and often personification of human aspirations.

I think you and I would agree that reason and order underpin existence. For me, this is faith not knowledge. Your 'proof' based on Euclidean geometry is a lost cause.
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Belindi wrote: July 4th, 2021, 5:03 am I think you and I would agree that reason and order underpin existence.
If by existence you mean God's Existence, then yes. There are people who are disordered/diseased/irrational/evil. It is because God is the Sustainer, the Omnipotent, and the Omniscient that such people exist perfectly as the people that they are (by this I mean it's perfection that evil suffers or is mislead, and since such people are irrational or insincere to God/Good, they exist perfectly in Existence (from being mislead (because they seek to mislead others via lies and deception to justify their irrational beliefs/selfs and they do not repent when they see that they have been or are irrational/evil), to suffering in Hell. Thanks to God, everyone is as good/evil as they are truly/really willing to be (true free-will potential would be oppressed/unsatisfied if this was not the case), and this is treated as it is deserved. Perfection is always the case because Perfection is Omnipresent (this is why everything in Existence exists perfectly relative to itself, but only God is truly perfect...because if anything exists perfectly, it is purely because God is perfect. God guarantees Justice, Mercy, Vengeance, Generosity, and so on). Perfection is always satisfied (or Omnisatisfied....whether it's through the suffering of evil, or the misleading of those willing to mislead, or the short-term narrow happiness of evil who is only good in a short-term and narrow manner, or the long-term comprehensive suffering of mature evil, or the guiding of those willing to guide, or in being generous to those willing to be generous (or simply those who appreciate generosity, guidance, goodness).
For me, this is faith not knowledge. Your 'proof' based on Euclidean geometry is a lost cause.
For me, this is knowledge. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I know triangles have three sides. It feels unnatural to say I don't have faith in triangles being three-sided (because knowledge is more superior than just faith, and saying I don't have faith in the three-sidedness of triangles implies both a lack of knowledge, and a lack of faith).

First truly/meaningfully/rationally establish that x is rational/good, then at least have potent faith that x is rational and good. Some people see that the rejection of x is absurd/irrational, yet, not only do they not treat x as a certainty, but they have no faith in x whatsoever. Such people are clearly evil.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by Belindi »

Philosopher wrote:
For me, this is knowledge. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I know triangles have three sides. It feels unnatural to say I don't have faith in triangles being three-sided (because knowledge is more superior than just faith, and saying I don't have faith in the three-sidedness of triangles implies both a lack of knowledge, and a lack of faith).
You trust the sun will rise tomorrow because in your experience and the experience of your significant others , such as parents and teachers, the sun always has risen tomorrow. You know triangles have three sides because you were so taught at school. Some people have believed the sun will not rise unless they do certain magic rituals : some people have never been to school and learned about Euclidean triangles or pure logic.

These are two different sorts of reasoning. The former is inductive and empirical. The latter is based on deductive reasoning i.e. pure logic.
It is unsafe to have faith in both empirical knowledge and pure logic. Items of empirical knowledge are relatively true/false : items of pure logic are sound/unsound.
You confuse the empirical with the logical.

If God exists he necessarily exists not because He is perfect whatever 'perfect' means but because he is uncaused i.e. He is cause of Himself.

Despite your denial of the Cogito you remain a theistic cartesian who believes God exists because you can think of Him.
philosopher19
Posts: 323
Joined: September 21st, 2018, 1:34 pm

Re: God as the true cogito

Post by philosopher19 »

Belindi wrote: July 5th, 2021, 4:35 am You trust the sun will rise tomorrow because in your experience and the experience of your significant others , such as parents and teachers, the sun always has risen tomorrow.
This doesn't alter the fact that the sun rising tomorrow is a matter of faith for non-Omniscient beings such as me. That this is a matter of faith for me, is knowledge (just as triangles having three sides, is knowledge). You cannot say "triangles don't have three sides" without being contradictory in the process (which is demonstrative of the fact that you know triangles have three sides).
You know triangles have three sides because you were so taught at school.
Some people have believed the sun will not rise unless they do certain magic rituals : some people have never been to school and learned about Euclidean triangles or pure logic.
This does not alter the fact that rejecting the three-sidedness of triangles leads to contradictions. In anything we do (science, psychology, court cases, discussions) we ensure that we are semantically consistent. As in we make sure that we are not being contradictory or unreasonable (that is of course when our goal is to be impartial and reasonable. This does not hold true when we put ourselves above reason).
These are two different sorts of reasoning. The former is inductive and empirical. The latter is based on deductive reasoning i.e. pure logic.
It is unsafe to have faith in both empirical knowledge and pure logic. Items of empirical knowledge are relatively true/false : items of pure logic are sound/unsound.
The one thing you do not compromise on, is reason (if your goal is to be reasonable that is). If x is a semantically inconsistent belief, then x is certainly wrong (meaning it is certainly not true of Existence/Reality/Truth/God). Matters of pure reason are not relatively true/false. Matters of pure reason are absolutely true/false (for example, God absolutely exists is absolutely true, whilst triangles don't have three sides is absolutely false). Whether the sun will rise tomorrow, is relatively true/false (to me it's unknown, but I'm guessing it will rise tomorrow (so in this sense perhaps you can say it's relatively known because it's not just random that I'm saying the sun will rise tomorrow. There is the belief that nobody has observed anything to hint that it will not rise tomorrow and all observations that we have made strongly seem to hint at it rising tomorrow). To God it is absolutely known).
You confuse the empirical with the logical.
I think I treat matters of faith as faith, and I treat matters of knowledge as knowledge. I won't pretend to not know what I know, and I won't pretend to know what I don't know. More specifically, I won't treat that which I have faith in (like the sun rising tomorrow) as being 100%, and I won't treat which I know (triangles having three sides, God absolutely existing) as being less than 100%. To my understanding, this is what God commands for those who seek goodness.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021