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

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum » March 6th, 2018, 10:07 pm

jerlands wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 9:53 pm
Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 9:43 pm

Yes, an assumption of impossibility.
God is an impossibility to be real, thus impossible to be within the self.
Assuming something that is impossible to be real is merely a fantasy.

The 'Self' as a soul that survives physical death is also an impossibility.

An empirical self on the other hand can be known.
Exactly my point. Based on the assumption "God" is within Self.
So you admit you are playing with a fantasy? :shock:

fantasy: -the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
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 6th, 2018, 10:10 pm

Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:07 pm
jerlands wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 9:53 pm


Exactly my point. Based on the assumption "God" is within Self.
So you admit you are playing with a fantasy? :shock:

fantasy: -the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
No, you misunderstand. Man finds "God" within himself. If you don't seek, you don't find.
"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 6th, 2018, 10:19 pm

jerlands wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:10 pm
Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:07 pm
So you admit you are playing with a fantasy? :shock:

fantasy: -the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
No, you misunderstand. Man finds "God" within himself. If you don't seek, you don't find.
As I had stated,
  • God is an impossibility,
    A fantasy is an impossibility
    Therefore God is a fantasy
Thus "Man finds "God" [a fantasy as above] within himself" is a fantasy.
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 6th, 2018, 10:31 pm

Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:19 pm
jerlands wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:10 pm


No, you misunderstand. Man finds "God" within himself. If you don't seek, you don't find.
As I had stated,
  • God is an impossibility,
    A fantasy is an impossibility
    Therefore God is a fantasy
Thus "Man finds "God" [a fantasy as above] within himself" is a fantasy.
Ok.. how illogical can we get? First.. the assumption "God" is an impossibility is not proven. You simply cannot prove or disprove "God" except to yourself. Second... A fantasy is an impossibility is not a complete assumption. Many fantasies (sci-fi) actually have had bearing.
Lastly, two wrongs don't make a right...
.
"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 6th, 2018, 11:21 pm

jerlands wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:31 pm
Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:19 pm
As I had stated,
  • God is an impossibility,
    A fantasy is an impossibility
    Therefore God is a fantasy
Thus "Man finds "God" [a fantasy as above] within himself" is a fantasy.
Ok.. how illogical can we get? First.. the assumption "God" is an impossibility is not proven. You simply cannot prove or disprove "God" except to yourself. Second... A fantasy is an impossibility is not a complete assumption. Many fantasies (sci-fi) actually have had bearing.
Lastly, two wrongs don't make a right...
.
Note,
God is an Impossibilty
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15155
So far there is no convincing counter to my argument.

If any idea is a scientific fiction, it must be based and extended from some Scientific theories, thus such a scientific fiction is empirically possible, not an impossibility. It is only subject to real evidence if it ever claim to be true.

The idea of God is never scientific at all thus it is outside the paradigm of Science and can never ever be dealt or proven by Science. Note Scientific theories are merely conjectures, albeit polished conjectures [Popper]. It would be very ridiculous to conflate an all-powerful omi-whatever God with conjectures.
As I had argued the idea of God arose out of psychological factors in the mind driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Why theists reject the psychological basis is because they are caught in a catch-22.
For most theists any slightest questioning and reasoning God is psychological itself and thus is a threat to their psychological security.
Therefore there is no way the majority of theist will attempt 'know thyself' to understand 'why I am a theist' where meanwhile their fellow theists continue to wreck terrible evils and violence around the world in the name of theism.
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 7th, 2018, 12:33 am

Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 11:21 pm
jerlands wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 10:31 pm


Ok.. how illogical can we get? First.. the assumption "God" is an impossibility is not proven. You simply cannot prove or disprove "God" except to yourself. Second... A fantasy is an impossibility is not a complete assumption. Many fantasies (sci-fi) actually have had bearing.
Lastly, two wrongs don't make a right...
.
Note,
God is an Impossibilty
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15155
So far there is no convincing counter to my argument.
Spectrum wrote:
October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm
  • Absolute perfection is an impossibility
    God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    Therefore God is an impossibility.
Your first premise is both countered and unproven by you. It is countered in the notion of Actus Purus. But to understand that notion you would have to have a grasp of the notion of Actus Primus and Actus Secundus and so forth. Further, you have not proven the aforementioned untrue.
You second premise relays on perception of absolute perfection or completeness and your perception is something only you can change.

Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 11:21 pm
If any idea is a scientific fiction, it must be based and extended from some Scientific theories, thus such a scientific fiction is empirically possible, not an impossibility. It is only subject to real evidence if it ever claim to be true.
The word science is derived from the notion of cutting or dividing in half. If you wish to see the world through a fractal lens that is your option.
Spectrum wrote:
October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm
The idea of God is never scientific at all thus it is outside the paradigm of Science and can never ever be dealt or proven by Science. Note Scientific theories are merely conjectures, albeit polished conjectures [Popper]. It would be very ridiculous to conflate an all-powerful omi-whatever God with conjectures.
As I had argued the idea of God arose out of psychological factors in the mind driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Every pursuit arrives out of existential crisis or condition. There is nothing stated here. Man found God first through self exploration.

Spectrum wrote:
October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm
Why theists reject the psychological basis is because they are caught in a catch-22.
For most theists any slightest questioning and reasoning God is psychological itself and thus is a threat to their psychological security.
Therefore there is no way the majority of theist will attempt 'know thyself' to understand 'why I am a theist' where meanwhile their fellow theists continue to wreck terrible evils and violence around the world in the name of theism.
God is known to man as a notion. The creator, the causal force and those things which other men have reflected upon find true in some and thus give credibility to the individual for the notion.
.
"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 7th, 2018, 1:28 am

jerlands wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 12:33 am
Spectrum wrote:
October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm
  • Absolute perfection is an impossibility
    God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
    Therefore God is an impossibility.
Your first premise is both countered and unproven by you. It is countered in the notion of Actus Purus. But to understand that notion you would have to have a grasp of the notion of Actus Primus and Actus Secundus and so forth. Further, you have not proven the aforementioned untrue.
You second premise relays on perception of absolute perfection or completeness and your perception is something only you can change.
Note my first premise which I emphasized later should be;
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

The idea of Actus_purus support my P2.

Can you explain how it counters my P1?

You need to provide more rational arguments against the premises I raised.
Spectrum wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 11:21 pm
If any idea is a scientific fiction, it must be based and extended from some Scientific theories, thus such a scientific fiction is empirically possible, not an impossibility. It is only subject to real evidence if it ever claim to be true.
The word science is derived from the notion of cutting or dividing in half. If you wish to see the world through a fractal lens that is your option.
The debate on this is not about the etymology of the word 'Science.'
The relevant origin of 'Science' is 'to know.' Perhaps 'cutting' was related to cutting up things and dissection of things to know what is inside. But Science = to know is not based on cutting and dividing all the time.

Spectrum wrote:
October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm
The idea of God is never scientific at all thus it is outside the paradigm of Science and can never ever be dealt or proven by Science. Note Scientific theories are merely conjectures, albeit polished conjectures [Popper]. It would be very ridiculous to conflate an all-powerful omi-whatever God with conjectures.
As I had argued the idea of God arose out of psychological factors in the mind driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Every pursuit arrives out of existential crisis or condition. There is nothing stated here. Man found God first through self exploration.
If God is founded, then where is the evidence for God.
As I had mentioned before there are those who founded God but they suffered from various mental illness, brain damage, took drugs, did meditations, etc.
There are no real evidence of God existing.
If you insist, where is the evidence?
Spectrum wrote:
October 17th, 2017, 10:09 pm
Why theists reject the psychological basis is because they are caught in a catch-22.
For most theists any slightest questioning and reasoning God is psychological itself and thus is a threat to their psychological security.
Therefore there is no way the majority of theist will attempt 'know thyself' to understand 'why I am a theist' where meanwhile their fellow theists continue to wreck terrible evils and violence around the world in the name of theism.
God is known to man as a notion. The creator, the causal force and those things which other men have reflected upon find true in some and thus give credibility to the individual for the notion.
.
Yes, God is known to man as a notion or idea, not as something real.
Such a notion or idea arose to human consciousness from psychological factors.

What is true of things existing or created and proven with justifications cannot lead to the conclusion God exists as real.
For God to be real within the empirical rational reality, God need to be justified to be true with evidence and rational arguments.

It is pure rhetoric to rely on the following argument;
  • The Sun exists
    God created the Sun
    Therefore God exists
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 7th, 2018, 2:13 am

Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
jerlands wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 12:33 am

Your first premise is both countered and unproven by you. It is countered in the notion of Actus Purus. But to understand that notion you would have to have a grasp of the notion of Actus Primus and Actus Secundus and so forth. Further, you have not proven the aforementioned untrue.
You second premise relays on perception of absolute perfection or completeness and your perception is something only you can change.
Note my first premise which I emphasized later should be;
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
What is empirical-rational reality? Isn't empirical-rational reality a bit of an oxymoron? If I were a doctor and told you I cured alzheimer's through diet and have done it many times would you accept that diet cures alzheimer's?
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The idea of Actus_purus support my P2.
It supports the notion of God as being perfect but does not necessarily support your views.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Can you explain how it counters my P1?
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
I'm waiting on your explanation for "empirical-rational reality."
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
You need to provide more rational arguments against the premises I raised.
I thought you were looking for empirical evidence?
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The debate on this is not about the etymology of the word 'Science.'
The relevant origin of 'Science' is 'to know.' Perhaps 'cutting' was related to cutting up things and dissection of things to know what is inside. But Science = to know is not based on cutting and dividing all the time.
Science is a methodology that requires measure, relation of one thing to another.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
If God is founded, then where is the evidence for God.
As I had mentioned before there are those who founded God but they suffered from various mental illness, brain damage, took drugs, did meditations, etc.
There are no real evidence of God existing.
If you insist, where is the evidence?
I've tried to relay this notion to you but you continue to either overlook it or dismiss it. God is found through self examination. God cannot be given to another man but through himself.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Yes, God is known to man as a notion or idea, not as something real.
Such a notion or idea arose to human consciousness from psychological factors.
Is division, multiplication, addition or subtraction real? We see and use these basic functions all the time but fail to see how they're expressed in everything.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
What is true of things existing or created and proven with justifications cannot lead to the conclusion God exists as real.
For God to be real within the empirical rational reality, God need to be justified to be true with evidence and rational arguments.
Empirical means through observation. If you fail to look you will fail to find.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
It is pure rhetoric to rely on the following argument;
  • The Sun exists
    God created the Sun
    Therefore God exists
There is simple logic and then there is more complex logic. Hebraic thought places the past in front of man and the future behind him. The logic in this? Man is able to see the past but unable to see the future.
.
"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 7th, 2018, 3:25 am

jerlands wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 2:13 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Note my first premise which I emphasized later should be;
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
What is empirical-rational reality? Isn't empirical-rational reality a bit of an oxymoron? If I were a doctor and told you I cured alzheimer's through diet and have done it many times would you accept that diet cures alzheimer's?
Science is very specifically based on the Scientific Framework and Methods.
The core of its method is based on from correlation between variables then to cause & effect and concluding with a theory based on multiple testing and consistent repetitions of the results.

Thus if you start with;
  • Dieting = alzheimer's cured - many times [say 20].
    (Assuming 'cure' is possible.)
The above is empirical and based on observation of evidence within an empirical reality.
But note being philosophical and rational, it would not be wise to accept such mere observation as 99.9% truth. At most we accept this as a correlation and assigned a confidence level of say 50%.

The reason is we have not exactly isolated 'dieting' as the sole variable.
Even if have isolated dieting as the sole variable, we still need to identify the exact critical variable to contribute to the cure.
It is possible the critical variable[s] could be a type of food within the diet and certain elements within that type of food.

When we have identified the critical variable[s] from the diet, we will do various control experiments.
In addition we will use other food that has those critical variable[s] to test whether they produce the same results.

For example it was discovered certain food prevented or cured beriberi. Then further research indicated it was the vitamin B1 as the critical element in the food that cure beriberi. Even artificially manufactured vitamin B1 will cure beriberi.

If you review the above processes, you will note it started with an empirical base, i.e. observation and experiences but then further thinking and rationality is applied logically to investigate into the various process to improve in finding the final critical element, e.g. vitamin B1 in the case of the above example.

This is the basis of the empirical-rational reality and we must add in 'philosophical' to ensure all the processes and perspectives involved are holistic.
So where does you claim empirical-rational is oxymoron?
Note the principle applicable here is complementarity which is also applied in Quantum Physics [Bohr].

You need to check your philosophical vision which imo is quite lacking and need to be filled with much philosophical knowledge.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The idea of Actus_purus support my P2.
Actus-Purus supports the notion of God as being perfect but does not necessarily support your views.
[/quote]Why not? You seem lost here?
My premise 2 asserts God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, so Actus-Purus support my premise 2.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
You need to provide more rational arguments against the premises I raised.
I thought you were looking for empirical evidence?
My syllogism is not based on the empirical. So I did not ask for empirical evidence in this case.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The debate on this is not about the etymology of the word 'Science.'
The relevant origin of 'Science' is 'to know.' Perhaps 'cutting' was related to cutting up things and dissection of things to know what is inside. But Science = to know is not based on cutting and dividing all the time.
Science is a methodology that requires measure, relation of one thing to another.
You are off topic in this case.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
If God is founded, then where is the evidence for God.
As I had mentioned before there are those who founded God but they suffered from various mental illness, brain damage, took drugs, did meditations, etc.
There are no real evidence of God existing.
If you insist, where is the evidence?
I've tried to relay this notion to you but you continue to either overlook it or dismiss it. God is found through self examination. God cannot be given to another man but through himself.
What I trying to tell you, whatever is claimed by the self alone by self-examination is merely opinion and cannot be objective knowledge.

A hypochondriac through self-examination will claim he has a certain serious disease. Will you or anyone accept it? The ultimate is to confirm the person self-examination is true or not, we still need an empirical-rational process.

Therefore you cannot simply claim a God based on self-examination is real and true.
To confirm your God through self-examination is real and true, that God must processed through an empirical-rational process.

However I am certain your self-examined God cannot be brought forth to be processed through an empirical-rational process, thus God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Yes, God is known to man as a notion or idea, not as something real.
Such a notion or idea arose to human consciousness from psychological factors.
Is division, multiplication, addition or subtraction real? We see and use these basic functions all the time but fail to see how they're expressed in everything.
There are two perspectives to this;
  • 1. Division, multiplication, addition or subtraction are represented in theory via reason and abstraction.
    2. They can be represented by their respective processes with the empirical, e.g. cutting an apple into 2 pieces is an empirical-based division.
As for the idea of God, it cannot only be possible by reason, i.e. thinking perspective but NEVER in the empirical-rational perspective.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
What is true of things existing or created and proven with justifications cannot lead to the conclusion God exists as real.
For God to be real within the empirical rational reality, God need to be justified to be true with evidence and rational arguments.
Empirical means through observation. If you fail to look you will fail to find.
This is one of the most ridiculous proposition.
If this case, anyone can use this as an excuse and don't have to be responsible for their claim.
The point here is I want to look but it is you who had failed to produce the 'thing' for me to look.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
It is pure rhetoric to rely on the following argument;
  • The Sun exists
    God created the Sun
    Therefore God exists
There is simple logic and then there is more complex logic. Hebraic thought places the past in front of man and the future behind him. The logic in this? Man is able to see the past but unable to see the future.
.
Note there are rules to logic, you cannot invent your own.
What I presented as your thinking is basically bad logic.
Note whatever the logic, ultimately you will have to produce the evidence to prove it is real within an empirical-rational reality.

In the case of the idea of God, it is impossible for God to be real within an empirical-rational reality.

The only perspective for God to be possible is only within the perspective of reason and that is useful as a thought to deal with the natural terrible psychological angst.
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 7th, 2018, 4:34 am

Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
jerlands wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 2:13 am

What is empirical-rational reality? Isn't empirical-rational reality a bit of an oxymoron? If I were a doctor and told you I cured alzheimer's through diet and have done it many times would you accept that diet cures alzheimer's?
Science is very specifically based on the Scientific Framework and Methods.
The core of its method is based on from correlation between variables then to cause & effect and concluding with a theory based on multiple testing and consistent repetitions of the results.

Thus if you start with;
  • Dieting = alzheimer's cured - many times [say 20].
    (Assuming 'cure' is possible.)
The above is empirical and based on observation of evidence within an empirical reality.
But note being philosophical and rational, it would not be wise to accept such mere observation as 99.9% truth. At most we accept this as a correlation and assigned a confidence level of say 50%.

The reason is we have not exactly isolated 'dieting' as the sole variable.
Even if have isolated dieting as the sole variable, we still need to identify the exact critical variable to contribute to the cure.
It is possible the critical variable[s] could be a type of food within the diet and certain elements within that type of food.

When we have identified the critical variable[s] from the diet, we will do various control experiments.
In addition we will use other food that has those critical variable[s] to test whether they produce the same results.

For example it was discovered certain food prevented or cured beriberi. Then further research indicated it was the vitamin B1 as the critical element in the food that cure beriberi. Even artificially manufactured vitamin B1 will cure beriberi.

If you review the above processes, you will note it started with an empirical base, i.e. observation and experiences but then further thinking and rationality is applied logically to investigate into the various process to improve in finding the final critical element, e.g. vitamin B1 in the case of the above example.

This is the basis of the empirical-rational reality and we must add in 'philosophical' to ensure all the processes and perspectives involved are holistic.
So where does you claim empirical-rational is oxymoron?
Empirical is the first step that can lead to a rational explanation but the rationality deduced is subjective to the physician and isn't readily available to other clinicians or lay persons except through testimony i.e., they would have to try your cure themselves.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
Note the principle applicable here is complementarity which is also applied in Quantum Physics [Bohr].

You need to check your philosophical vision which imo is quite lacking and need to be filled with much philosophical knowledge.
I entirely missed your line of reasoning here? Quantum theory proposes that the observer ask nature a question and the answer received is then weighed against the assumed response as a variable of probability.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
The idea of Actus_purus support my P2.
Actus-Purus supports the notion of God as being perfect but does not necessarily support your views.
Why not? You seem lost here?
My premise 2 asserts God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, so Actus-Purus support my premise 2.
My point was that I do not think you comprehend what Actus Purus is.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
I thought you were looking for empirical evidence?
My syllogism is not based on the empirical. So I did not ask for empirical evidence in this case.
Your first proposal is "P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality."
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
Science is a methodology that requires measure, relation of one thing to another.
You are off topic in this case.
I've tried to relay this notion to you but you continue to either overlook it or dismiss it. God is found through self examination. God cannot be given to another man but through himself.
What I trying to tell you, whatever is claimed by the self alone by self-examination is merely opinion and cannot be objective knowledge.

A hypochondriac through self-examination will claim he has a certain serious disease. Will you or anyone accept it? The ultimate is to confirm the person self-examination is true or not, we still need an empirical-rational process.

Therefore you cannot simply claim a God based on self-examination is real and true.
To confirm your God through self-examination is real and true, that God must processed through an empirical-rational process.

However I am certain your self-examined God cannot be brought forth to be processed through an empirical-rational process, thus God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
Is thought an empirical rational process? Does thought manifest anything?
Here's an interesting video that might touch on some of the issues we've discussed.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am
Is division, multiplication, addition or subtraction real? We see and use these basic functions all the time but fail to see how they're expressed in everything.
There are two perspectives to this;
  • 1. Division, multiplication, addition or subtraction are represented in theory via reason and abstraction.
    2. They can be represented by their respective processes with the empirical, e.g. cutting an apple into 2 pieces is an empirical-based division.
As for the idea of God, it cannot only be possible by reason, i.e. thinking perspective but NEVER in the empirical-rational perspective.
This is why I don't think you understand Actus Purus.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
Empirical means through observation. If you fail to look you will fail to find.
This is one of the most ridiculous proposition.
If this case, anyone can use this as an excuse and don't have to be responsible for their claim.
The point here is I want to look but it is you who had failed to produce the 'thing' for me to look.
No, the point is no one creates a believe in someone. The person accepts belief, like someone might accept that infrared light aids mitochondrial health.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
There is simple logic and then there is more complex logic. Hebraic thought places the past in front of man and the future behind him. The logic in this? Man is able to see the past but unable to see the future.
.
Note there are rules to logic, you cannot invent your own.
What I presented as your thinking is basically bad logic.
Note whatever the logic, ultimately you will have to produce the evidence to prove it is real within an empirical-rational reality.

In the case of the idea of God, it is impossible for God to be real within an empirical-rational reality.

The only perspective for God to be possible is only within the perspective of reason and that is useful as a thought to deal with the natural terrible psychological angst.
You simply don't understand logic. Logic is the harmony in joining and exists in the smallest particles of nature.
.
"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 7th, 2018, 6:12 am

jerlands wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 4:34 am
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
Science is very specifically based on the Scientific Framework and Methods.
The core of its method is based on from correlation between variables then to cause & effect and concluding with a theory based on multiple testing and consistent repetitions of the results.

Thus if you start with;
  • Dieting = alzheimer's cured - many times [say 20].
    (Assuming 'cure' is possible.)
The above is empirical and based on observation of evidence within an empirical reality.
But note being philosophical and rational, it would not be wise to accept such mere observation as 99.9% truth. At most we accept this as a correlation and assigned a confidence level of say 50%.

The reason is we have not exactly isolated 'dieting' as the sole variable.
Even if have isolated dieting as the sole variable, we still need to identify the exact critical variable to contribute to the cure.
It is possible the critical variable[s] could be a type of food within the diet and certain elements within that type of food.

When we have identified the critical variable[s] from the diet, we will do various control experiments.
In addition we will use other food that has those critical variable[s] to test whether they produce the same results.

For example it was discovered certain food prevented or cured beriberi. Then further research indicated it was the vitamin B1 as the critical element in the food that cure beriberi. Even artificially manufactured vitamin B1 will cure beriberi.

If you review the above processes, you will note it started with an empirical base, i.e. observation and experiences but then further thinking and rationality is applied logically to investigate into the various process to improve in finding the final critical element, e.g. vitamin B1 in the case of the above example.

This is the basis of the empirical-rational reality and we must add in 'philosophical' to ensure all the processes and perspectives involved are holistic.
So where does you claim empirical-rational is oxymoron?
Empirical is the first step that can lead to a rational explanation but the rationality deduced is subjective to the physician and isn't readily available to other clinicians or lay persons except through testimony i.e., they would have to try your cure themselves.
You seem to have totally missed my point.
I suggest you read it again.

Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
Note the principle applicable here is complementarity which is also applied in Quantum Physics [Bohr].

You need to check your philosophical vision which imo is quite lacking and need to be filled with much philosophical knowledge.
I entirely missed your line of reasoning here? Quantum theory proposes that the observer ask nature a question and the answer received is then weighed against the assumed response as a variable of probability.
You should read up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
You stated empirical-rational is an oxymoron. I stated they can be reconciled by the use of complementarity where one of its use is in Quantum Physics. Note Yin-Yang complementarity.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am

Why not? You seem lost here?
My premise 2 asserts God MUST be an absolutely perfect God, so Actus-Purus support my premise 2.
My point was that I do not think you comprehend what Actus Purus is.
Explain where did I go wrong?
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
You are off topic in this case.

What I trying to tell you, whatever is claimed by the self alone by self-examination is merely opinion and cannot be objective knowledge.

A hypochondriac through self-examination will claim he has a certain serious disease. Will you or anyone accept it? The ultimate is to confirm the person self-examination is true or not, we still need an empirical-rational process.

Therefore you cannot simply claim a God based on self-examination is real and true.
To confirm your God through self-examination is real and true, that God must processed through an empirical-rational process.

However I am certain your self-examined God cannot be brought forth to be processed through an empirical-rational process, thus God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.
Is thought an empirical rational process? Does thought manifest anything?
Will look at the video later.
Thinking is an empirical process.
But the resultant of thinking [theories, views, etc.] is not necessary empirical.
If you think of a perfect square, it cannot be empirical.

Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 1:28 am

There are two perspectives to this;
  • 1. Division, multiplication, addition or subtraction are represented in theory via reason and abstraction.
    2. They can be represented by their respective processes with the empirical, e.g. cutting an apple into 2 pieces is an empirical-based division.
As for the idea of God, it cannot only be possible by reason, i.e. thinking perspective but NEVER in the empirical-rational perspective.
This is why I don't think you understand Actus Purus.
No point just throwing in claims.
Where did you think I did not understand?
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am
This is one of the most ridiculous proposition.
If this case, anyone can use this as an excuse and don't have to be responsible for their claim.
The point here is I want to look but it is you who had failed to produce the 'thing' for me to look.
No, the point is no one creates a believe in someone. The person accepts belief, like someone might accept that infrared light aids mitochondrial health.
What about brainwashing?
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 3:25 am

Note there are rules to logic, you cannot invent your own.
What I presented as your thinking is basically bad logic.
Note whatever the logic, ultimately you will have to produce the evidence to prove it is real within an empirical-rational reality.

In the case of the idea of God, it is impossible for God to be real within an empirical-rational reality.

The only perspective for God to be possible is only within the perspective of reason and that is useful as a thought to deal with the natural terrible psychological angst.
You simply don't understand logic. Logic is the harmony in joining and exists in the smallest particles of nature.
.
What?
I don't claim to be an expert in logic. There is nothing difficult in basic logic for an average person.

Your point re logic and nature above seem ridiculous. Do you have a reference to support the above seemingly weird point?
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 7th, 2018, 8:16 am

Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 6:12 am
jerlands wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 4:34 am
You simply don't understand logic. Logic is the harmony in joining and exists in the smallest particles of nature.
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 6:12 am
What?
I don't claim to be an expert in logic. There is nothing difficult in basic logic for an average person.

Your point re logic and nature above seem ridiculous. Do you have a reference to support the above seemingly weird point?
Spectrum wrote:
March 7th, 2018, 6:12 am
Absolute perfection is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
Therefore God is an impossibility.
The question is if the notion of God fits within the confines of "empirical-rational reality?" (I believe we've already agreed upon Actus Purus in that God created the world complete and thus fulfilled your second premise.) So we've also agreed empirical is through observation and rational is the expression of that observation... correct? So since observation comes from man then we are also looking for some expression of that observation from another man correct? Tell me if I'm correct in my assumptions or correct me if I'm not.
.
"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

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

Re: Proof of God

Post by jerlands » March 7th, 2018, 8:20 am

The question is if the notion of God fits within the confines of "empirical-rational reality?" (I believe we've already agreed upon Actus Purus in that God created the world complete and thus fulfilled your second premise.) So we've also agreed empirical is through observation and rational is the expression of that observation... correct? So since observation comes from man then we are also looking for some expression of that observation from another man correct? Tell me if I'm correct in my assumptions or correct me if I'm not.


I resubmit my reply due to foo-pah
"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

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

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch » March 7th, 2018, 10:20 am

We seem to be going around in circles a bit, I know where Spectrum stands on the existence of god, and although I am an atheist myself and do not believe such a being exists either, I am an igtheist which is a person who is absolutely certain of one thing, namely that the existence of any kind of transcendent super being/creator can neither be proven or disproven by definition. I think the igtheist position is the most rigorously supported by philosophy in general. I'm not clear where you stand jerlands? Do you believe in any version of the god myth or are you a rational person? When people claim to be agnostic I count them as ether "on the fence" believers or as atheists who are cowards and won't let go of their primitive heritage.

As to your post about the self, Joseph Campbell had a line in the "Power of Myth" where he says "heaven and hell and all the gods are within us". He was clearly speaking metaphorically of course but it's still a very powerful psychological statement

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

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch » March 7th, 2018, 10:32 am

To Spectrum:

I don't subscribe to the notion that perfection is the appropriate defining characteristic of the concept of god across all related mythology. I think the qualifying characteristic that defines a god across most mythology is "transcendence" in relation to the physical universe. You can immediately see this leads directly to the igtheist position. Something that is transcendent in relation to the physical universe/creation would necessarily be unknowable. This logic is almost enough to disprove god's existence but not quite. The best one can say is you couldn't have any knowledge of such an entity as you are completely bounded by the physical universe. This is why and how dualist can hang on to the notion of god because they believe "spirit" human or otherwise, is also transcendent of the physical universe and you and I of course know this is irrational.

Post Reply