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: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

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 »

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: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

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 »

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: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

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 »

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: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

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 »

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: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

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 »

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: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Proof of God

Post by Spectrum »

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 »

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 »

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: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

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: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch »

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

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

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