Re: The "God exists" paradox
Posted: January 23rd, 2020, 9:50 am
Before that: unencumbered by paragraph breaks. Without those I find it harder to work out whether any part of it is encumbered by logic.
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16602
Aristotle's ideas about "God" are still current in Modern Philosophy today, and the late Sir/Dr/Prof Roger Scruton in England practically quotes Aristotle as such in his book "Modern Philosophy."Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 8:40 pmI distinctly remember asking you from early on if you'd be willing to actually examine the arguments of the philosophers you blankly name-drop in these threads as some sort of basis of validity for your position. You never acknowledged my offer.h_k_s wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 1:39 pm No one is trying to stop you from being atheist, not even caring.
But the hollow arguments and fallacies of the atheist argument are what is offensive to logic, especially on a Philosophy forum, which by its nature is reverent to Aristotle and his invention of both logic and of the argument for the Prime Mover.
Do you really understand Aristotle's argument? Do you have any idea what was the definition of God Aristotle's proof led him to?
Aristotle was truly a great philosopher, as he not only was able to accurately deconstruct the arguments of others, he was also able to deconstruct his own.
He starts off with the premise that all of reality is in motion, each motion being the subsequent effect of some former motion, i.e., a cause for every effect. He posits that all motion must have had an origin, which he labels as the Prime Mover. He immediately realizes that the existence of his Prime Mover contradicts his premise, so he adjusts for this: the Prime Mover is itself immovable and unchangeable. To address the problem "how does an unchanging and immovable entity move things", Aristotle posits that this immovable unchanging entity only thinks, and ultimately is only thought, as it is also immaterial. The act of thinking somehow exerts an attractive force on physical reality, and so motion occurs as a result. (Note that Aristotle doesn't account for the Newtonian law that for every force exerted by an object, an equal opposite force is exerted on that object.) So what can an immovable unchangeable entity think about in such a way that it doesn't change? If the Prime Mover thought about the events subsequent to itself, it would be a changing entity, which, by definition, it can't be. Therefore, the Prime Mover can only be aware of itself.
This is the God that Aristotle concluded exists: an unchanging thought that is unaware of anything but itself. If this is not the definition of the God you propose exists, then Aristotle's proof doesn't support your proposal in the slightest.
So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time. But for now, these things interest us, even if we cannot describe them precisely, and we choose to think (speculate) about them. God is one such thing. There are many others.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 4:34 pm If you cannot define God, then don't. Just don't make any claims about God either. And that includes the claim that God exists. Because that claim requires God to have a definition.
And where does 'intelligence' come from if not from or through a truly Open Mind?Thomyum2 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:12 pmProf Bulani wrote: ↑January 19th, 2020, 12:45 pm
You seem somewhat disappointed that I haven't challenged your definition of God. There's no need to. I've pointed out that your definition is very different from what God is commonly defined as, and that no theist (including yourself, since you're also not a theist) would adopt such a definition.
creation's definition of God may not be a 'commonly' held one, but I don't think it is without precedent. It brings to mind the Christian Science Church's definition of God, as was written by its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, more than a hundred years ago: The great I Am; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; Substance; Intelligence.
Okay great. Now we have something to work with.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pmNo, it isn't.creation wrote:...my definition is just about the EXACT SAME as those definitions of God either specifically proposed by theists, or definitions of God generally defined in mainstream.
Here's your definition: God is defined as the Universe, and the Mind. The Mind is the ability to learn.
Here's the mainstream definition: God is defined as the omnipotent, eternal creator of the universe, a spiritual being in form, invisible and all-knowing, and the final judge of morality and justice.
'Benevolent' happens from God, the Mind, which has empathy for ALL, equally as One. When we are doing for ALL, which is just ourselves anyway, when we are doing the same as we want for our individual self, equally, then we are doing for our True Self, which is just ALL-OF-US, united as One.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm Other popular definitions of God include benevolent, demanding of worship, intolerant of disobedience and grantor of petitions.
Are you absolutely sure of this?Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm Neither the Universe nor the Mind is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, in spirit form, created the universe, has an opinion about sin, demands worship or judges immorality.
How could that even be possible?Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm The only attribute the Universe shares with the mainstream God is that they may both be considered omnipresent (although God is often described as existing beyond the bounds of the universe).
The soul, which is just the invisible thoughts and emotions, is the person, the you, the self, the entity 'human being'. Whereas, the Mind is thee Spirit, the Real and True Self, which is the entity of ALL, Being One.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm The Mind, being an ability and not an entity in itself, shares no attributes with God, which is defined as a entity.
As above.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:20 pm What are the similarities you are seeing between your definition of God and the mainstream definitions?
The list of attributes of God listed here correspond perfectly with my definition.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:47 pmI agree. There are many that share @creation 's concept of God. What I said is that his definition isn't similar to the mainstream definition of God. Even the list of attributes of God you've listed here doesn't correspond to creation's definition. Mind is the ability to learn. It isn't a store of knowledge or center of thought, it's the ability that allows learning to occur. That's not what is being referred to when Eddy refers to God as "Mind".Thomyum2 wrote: ↑January 20th, 2020, 6:12 pm @creation's definition of God may not be a 'commonly' held one, but I don't think it is without precedent. It brings to mind the Christian Science Church's definition of God, as was written by its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, more than a hundred years ago: The great I Am; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; Substance; Intelligence.
Why do you say some things will remain unknown?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 amSo, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 21st, 2020, 4:34 pm If you cannot define God, then don't. Just don't make any claims about God either. And that includes the claim that God exists. Because that claim requires God to have a definition.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am But for now, these things interest us, even if we cannot describe them precisely, and we choose to think (speculate) about them. God is one such thing. There are many others.
I don't think it's possible to make thinking about these vaguely-defined things any easier. Such metaphysical things are difficult to get our heads around, and (as you observe) difficult to define or describe. If we want easier problems, then I think we need to do what science does, and only address the simpler questions, for which there is evidence available, giving rise to falsifiable (and therefore investigable) theories. This is an acceptable, if limited, course to plot (IMO). But it's not the only way. If we can manage to think a little more flexibly, we can think about much more....
Because there is no evidence available, nor any prospect thereof. For example, consider the old example that we could be brains in vats. If we were, we could not distinguish it from the situation we think we are in. And there is no extra information that we could access to add more to our considerations. So, no more evidence means that whether we are brains in vats will "remain unknown".creation wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 9:01 amWhy do you say some things will remain unknown?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am
So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time.
I hope the above answers this too.
This is all well and good if we maintain that an entire separate reality (what does that even mean?) is required for God to have a plane to exist in. You touched on the two main objections to this proposal. First, what's stopping is from assuming that an R3 exists with a bring that accounts for the existence of R2. And we can extrapolate this reasoning infinitely. The second is of R2 is eternal, why would we not assume that R1 is eternal? What about R1 necessitates that it had a beginning? Note that reality simply equates to what is, not necessarily what exists within the universe, but simply what exists (which is why there can be no second or third reality).gad-fly wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 12:41 pm Call the reality governing God’s existence and our existence respectively as R1 and R2. We know about R2 but not R1. Likely they are different. In R2, we cannot find out how life comes about, and we are tempted to believe that we are created by some God, but is God in R1 also created by someone else in turn? Not necessarily. God may have permanent existence, or he may have come around accidentally, as when ferrous oxide comes about when a meteor containing iron drops into an atmosphere containing oxygen. Thus God in R1 may have no beginning and no end, or may have a beginning but no end. In this sense, life for God in R1 may not be relevant as what we understand as life, which must also involve death. In this respect, we cannot categorically deny God’s existence simply on what we cannot exist.
An earthquake isn't a thing that shakes. It is the shake itself. This isn't really an apt analogy. But I think I see the point you're trying to make. However, this isn't a solution to the problem of infinite regress in logic. We don't get to assert that "it would be futile to ask": if God created us, who created God? That's a legitimate question.Take earthquake. Until recently, we could not understand how it comes about. It is in order for the challenged mind to speculate on various causes. In turn, the inquisitive mind will take over trying to shoot down each cause one at a time. It would be futile to ask: If earthquake shakes us, what shakes earthquake, and what shakes that which shakes earthquake, and come to the conclusion that there is no cause on earthquake, and that it can come and go as it pleases.
If I understand this premise correctly, in order for something to exist, it requires existence, which is God? Wouldn't this necessity for existence also apply to God itself? How would God exist without existence, which is God?Scottmilligan wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 1:05 pm God is existence itself who bestows his existence upon other things which exist and upholds their existence.
Here's why this makes no sense. If a thing's "nature" or "essence" is to exist, then that thing would exist. You would need to provide examples of things that exist whose "nature" is to not exist, and vice versa. Otherwise you have no grounds upon to make such an assumption.We can understand this through seeing that the essence of a thing and its existence are necessairly separate. For example, if you were to say that the existence of a thing was included in its essence then you would be stuck with saying that that thing has necessary and thereby eternal existence because it is the very nature of the thing to not not exist.
No, we can't. "Existence itself" doesn't imply intelligence, agency, creativity, benevolence, or any other ability or attribute other than existence. You need to justify stretches like this.Now if God is existence itself then we can ascribe to him many of the dicine attributes traditionally attributed to him.
It don't see how being eternal implies being unchangeable. It simply means existing for an infinite duration of time. Unless you have a very strange definition of existence, things don't stop existing when they change.So existence must of necessity be eternal. To be eternal means to be without change. But to exist as matter or to exist within time is by definition to be changeable.
To act is to change. You're creating a complex self contradiction here. I'm familiar with Aquinas's argument and his hilarious definition of God as a being who cannot change, and therefore cannot act.This is because change is merely, as Aquinas points out, to go from a state of potentiality to actuality. So I am potentially in the future and now am actually in the future. But anything which does not possess necessary existence must be upheld by existence itself in order for it to progress into the future. This means God must not have any potentiality since to have potentiality by definition involves the possibility to change so therefore he id pure act.
See above. Is God defined as a being that cannot act?Now every material thing is composed by definition of act and potency so God cannot be material. But to not be material and to be eternal is to not exist within spacial dimensions since to exist in spatial dimensions would involve Existence itself existing within an external world. So God is spaceless. If he God is pure act then he is the cause of all change since no thing can actualise itself without first being actualised by another. But since he is the first actualiser, as pure act itself, he bestows the actualisation which other things use. Now this means that all the actualising capacity of any thing originally derives from God. And since power is merely the ability to actualise something, for example a bomb can only explode by having potential to explode before exploding actualised by another and another and so on, God must be all powerful because he contains all possible actualisations imaginable since everything derives its actualising capacity originally from him and could not have it without him, and thereby God has all power imaginable. I could go on but you get my drift :p
As I pointed out to creation, there is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" definition of God. I don't make any judgements about definitions other than are they logically consistent or not. A logically consistent definition doesn't imply a "right" definition, nor a logically inconsistent definition a "wrong" definition.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 11:44 am So, you will not have me even talk about God unless I have a definition of Her that you find acceptable? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how these things work. There are many things we don't understand. Some of them will remain unkown, while others will be understood in time. But for now, these things interest us, even if we cannot describe them precisely, and we choose to think (speculate) about them. God is one such thing. There are many others.
I don't think it's possible to make thinking about these vaguely-defined things any easier. Such metaphysical things are difficult to get our heads around, and (as you observe) difficult to define or describe. If we want easier problems, then I think we need to do what science does, and only address the simpler questions, for which there is evidence available, giving rise to falsifiable (and therefore investigable) theories. This is an acceptable, if limited, course to plot (IMO). But it's not the only way. If we can manage to think a little more flexibly, we can think about much more....
But I, and many believers like me, make no claims. We believe in God, but we are aware that scientifically/objectively/etc we're on shaky ground. So we make no claims, but we do admit happily to our beliefs, logically and objectively unfounded though they are. And we sometimes speculate further, but also in the context of belief, not a formal "claim".Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 24th, 2020, 2:56 pm If you make a claim, any claim, about God, you are implying that you have, at least in part, a definition of God.