First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Philosophy: The Existence of God
Posted 3/31/12 , edited 3/31/12

shinigami2513 wrote:

I don't follow the logic. It starts off implying that God is real, so why is the rest of the syllogism needed? I also don't see God as the tangible 10 dollar bill, since he can not be touched or seen. He seems more like a ten dollar bill you hope is there at check out.
I just included the 10 dollar description to clarify the second claim; just pretend I never mentioned it.
Well the argument doesn't really assume that he exist, but it just states that nothing greater can be conceived; it's kind of like saying unicorns are the most mystical creatures, it doesn't assume unicorns exist but it's just saying that they are mystical.

I might as well address another issue:

52173 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/1/12

RapeMonster wrote:


entropiCCycles wrote:

So, here's the structure of the syllogism (and my attempts at trying to understand your arguments):

A: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (God is such that nothing greater can be conceived.)
B: It is greater to exist and be conceived than to merely be conceived (To exist and be conceived is greater than to only be conceived.)
C: Therefore God exist (Therefore, God exists.)

A & B --> C (Notation used for lack of any other symbols for conjunctions and implications)

Logically, there is nothing wrong with the argument. The issue is with whether or not the assumptions (A and B ) are true, and I would like to start on that point by requesting clarification of A and B. Specifically, what do you mean by "conceived"? Also, in what sense are you using "greater" in both A and B, because if it is being used in two different senses, then the argument cannot hold.
Interpret it anyway you want to disprove the conclusion of the argument. I can't tell you exactly what it means because it comes from an old ontological argument, they are not my words

I personally think 'conceived' means to "think of", so basically: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.


Fair enough.

So, to continue where I left off, the focus is on showing that both A and B are (or, given your end goal in this task, are not) true statements, assuming that they use "greater" in the same sense. This is the main problem that I have with the statements, because "greater" is used in such a vague sense that I cannot determine their accuracy (That is, I can't say that they are True, nor can I say that they are False). I could also say the same of "exists", but that debate should be left to another thread, so we'll abandon that for now and take it for its intuitively obvious meaning.

I could also just treat both A and B as "Don't Knows", but then that would leave the entire argument A & B --> C as a "Don't Know" as well (I think. I'm not familiar with all of the different 3-valued logics out there, so I'd like to get some help from a logician or mathematician before I continue with this train of thought.). But, unless this second approach turns out to be more useful, I'd prefer to get a better understanding of what "greater" is supposed to mean.
Posted 4/1/12

entropiCCycles wrote:


RapeMonster wrote:


entropiCCycles wrote:

So, here's the structure of the syllogism (and my attempts at trying to understand your arguments):

A: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (God is such that nothing greater can be conceived.)
B: It is greater to exist and be conceived than to merely be conceived (To exist and be conceived is greater than to only be conceived.)
C: Therefore God exist (Therefore, God exists.)

A & B --> C (Notation used for lack of any other symbols for conjunctions and implications)

Logically, there is nothing wrong with the argument. The issue is with whether or not the assumptions (A and B ) are true, and I would like to start on that point by requesting clarification of A and B. Specifically, what do you mean by "conceived"? Also, in what sense are you using "greater" in both A and B, because if it is being used in two different senses, then the argument cannot hold.
Interpret it anyway you want to disprove the conclusion of the argument. I can't tell you exactly what it means because it comes from an old ontological argument, they are not my words

I personally think 'conceived' means to "think of", so basically: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.


Fair enough.

So, to continue where I left off, the focus is on showing that both A and B are (or, given your end goal in this task, are not) true statements, assuming that they use "greater" in the same sense. This is the main problem that I have with the statements, because "greater" is used in such a vague sense that I cannot determine their accuracy (That is, I can't say that they are True, nor can I say that they are False). I could also say the same of "exists", but that debate should be left to another thread, so we'll abandon that for now and take it for its intuitively obvious meaning.

I could also just treat both A and B as "Don't Knows", but then that would leave the entire argument A & B --> C as a "Don't Know" as well (I think. I'm not familiar with all of the different 3-valued logics out there, so I'd like to get some help from a logician or mathematician before I continue with this train of thought.). But, unless this second approach turns out to be more useful, I'd prefer to get a better understanding of what "greater" is supposed to mean.

I don't think the text is referring to a specific category in which God is 'greater' in, but it's being more general. If nothing greater than god can be thought of then it must mean there is nothing greater than God. If nothing is greater than God, then god is great in everything. Thus, being great in everything he must exist (because it's grater to) clearer?
52173 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/1/12


That only answers part of the question. In order for the argument to make any sense, then "greater" must be used in the same way for statement B (To exist and be conceived is greater than to only be conceived.). The problem is that using "greater" in this sense in causes B to have no clear meaning, as it isn't obvious that existing is "greater" than not existing.
12236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/1/12 , edited 4/1/12
God didn't give us a mind to think for ourselves, why would he? If he's so irrifutable, these things would be embedded in our minds like how we breathe, some say that it's because he gives us "Choice".

I've read bits and pieces of the bible, he tells people not to believe in him, make your own choices, if they are wrong then so be it. What is wrong to one may seem right some how to another. He also says not to judge, yet believers(Christians or the like) continue to judge others time and time again, say we need his guidance or protection, non-believers will go to hell, etc.

I just say don't preach if you have no idea what you're preaching, in the bible it shows somewhere that a thief breaks into a house with a family, and the father basically just says "Take/kill my wife and daughter, but leave me be, lay with my virgin daughter if you so see fit." Condoling rape? Condoling violence towards anyone other than himself? But that's okay in the eyes of your almighty. There may be a higher-being, or some sort of ultimate purpose, or whatever you wanna call it, but it's beyond human comprehension. That's why theres so many idealisms, choices, whatever. Christianity and the likes are just socialist control methods to control your thinking or beliefs and to be limited to one groups opinion.

Banned
34165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Stoke, England
Offline
Posted 4/1/12
Stephen Hawking says he doesn't exist, therefore he doesn't.
20565 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 4/1/12
12236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/1/12 , edited 4/1/12

Hairbelly wrote:



I've only seen a few of your posts Hairbelly, and I must say, I love you already, I don't care if you're Male or Female
Posted 4/1/12
the human race has a colorful imagination. but.. whatever keeps the world from utter chaos.

but he/she might exist. maybe.
Posted 4/1/12
I wonder if God tastes good fried.
8249 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 4/1/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU

Watch that. Stephen Hawking scientifically proves that a god simply couldn't have 'made' us and doesn't exist.
3238 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Vancouver, WA. wi...
Offline
Posted 4/1/12 , edited 4/1/12
God, sure, why not?

Even Stephen Hawking said, "We are free to believe what we want".

How do you really prove or disprove what transcends human understanding. Besides, depending on what you believe you aren't going to find out until the "end of time" anyway . . . or the end of your life . . . they are interchangable.

Add to that the idea of some eastern religions that you will always be there in some form or another, whether it's another human being or a drop of rain, (or a highwayman again), is scientifically provable. Even Hawking has said things to effect of us being stardust. Who is to say that wasn't stardust of another civilization. I depends on what your degree of afterlife or "whatever" happens to be.
And being that we still have only a limited idea of the "whole of the universe" what or who is to say the information of all those things that were, are not contained within the soup of creation that we haven't even discovered yet?

There is still the premise of optimism or pessimism, life after death or just oblivion. Take your pick as to which is which....
20565 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / Bite the pillow.
Offline
Posted 4/1/12

alextepes wrote:


Hairbelly wrote:



I've only seen a few of your posts Hairbelly, and I must say, I love you already, I don't care if you're Male or Female


Ah, thanks! Appreciate the props. Love is awesome. The more the better.


"Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none." ~Shakespeare


Posted 4/1/12
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
-C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
63390 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 4/1/12 , edited 4/1/12
People have been debating the existence of god(s)
for as long as the god concept has been around.

for example ...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

While I can't 100% disprove that god (or gods)
don't exist, I find it very unlikely. I personalty don't
believe in any gods, and I'm skeptical of the supernatural.
I believe it's a human made concept.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.