Logical proofs for God

Le Rack

solo1 wrote:

Well in reality, we made god in our image. To claim the reverse is genius, because it is both irrefutable, and it answers two problems at once.

hold on are you saying Im smart or being sarcastic?

bonkey

neuro-praxis wrote:

And, can you name a causeless event?
...
It is from the realisation that all actuality must have a cause.

]

This is where, for me, the crux of the matter lies.

Does all actuality have a cause? If we posit that it does, then the universe as a whole must have a creative cause, and this creative cause is what we determine is god. Thus, while it doesn't tie with some mainstream conclusions, we can posit that a self-contained, impervious-from-outside-influence universe must have a cause...and that cause must be god.

But thats just convenient misdirection, because continuing the thought process should also make us realise that we must also conclude that god has a cause - god was created. So why is "the creator of the universe" god, when god was in turn created by a seperate causality. And what caused that? And what caused that? And so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Something would appear to be wrong. Either we can never get to the source of causality (which is surely what god would be), or we must conclude that at least one thing must have no cause.

The conventional response to this is that causality is actually a human concept which really only makes sense when viewed in terms of a time-space (i.e. our universe).

There is no "before" a Big Bang (if Big Bang there was), because there was no time. But if there is no time, then there is no frame of reference for causality.

Thus, we can't say that God needs a cause, because cause-and effect doesn't apply in the frame of reference in which a God would exist. But if God doesn't need a cause to exist in order to have created the universe, it is equally true that the universe didn't need a cause to have been created, which means that there is no absolute requirement for God's existance to have done so.

So even the abandonment of the supra-universality of causality doesn't help us, as it can equally show there is no need for God or that God must exist.

Kelly's sillogistic logic may indeed be beyond reproach, but only as long as one accepts the base assumptions it is founded on - but those very assumptions would seem to ubdermine the conclusion unless you discard their absoluteness, which would also undermine the conclusion.

jc

bonkey

transperson wrote:

the phenomenal is what can be percieved. science only deals with the phenomenal. *divine* is not phenomenal.
science cannot have anything to do with the *divine*.
the respective investigations [divine Vs scientific] should keep to themselves.

If the divine cannot be perceived, how did a religious order manage to spring up about it.....unless their worship is of something they cannot perceive and therefore cannot know anything about...which begs the question as to how they can know it exists?

Ultimately, it all boils back to a simple fact - there's a reason they call it belief.

jc

m1ke

haven't read the whole thread but I thought i'd just throw this out since it might provide an answer to some of the causality problems:

As someone said earlier in relation to Hawking our understanding of things changes rapidly with the growth of human knowledge. It is possible that some time in the future, human knowledge will be so advanced that we end up creating the universe as it is now. I know this is very linear/historical/tautological and I don't actually believe this.

Dades

m1ke wrote:

haven't read the whole thread but I thought i'd just throw this out since it might provide an answer to some of the causality problems:

As someone said earlier in relation to Hawking our understanding of things changes rapidly with the growth of human knowledge. It is possible that some time in the future, human knowledge will be so advanced that we end up creating the universe as it is now. I know this is very linear/historical/tautological and I don't actually believe this.

Well thanks for clearing that up, m1ke
(I don't believe it either).

Bonkey's post makes a lot of sense to me. Sense in that causality can't be used to argue either case.

The most popular theories are often not those with the most convincing argument, but those delivered by the most convincing arguer. :eek:

transperson

If the divine cannot be perceived, how did a religious order manage to spring up about it.....unless their worship is of something they cannot perceive and therefore cannot know anything about...which begs the question as to how they can know it exists?

by similar logic

If the mathematics cannot be perceived, how did a entire dicipline manage to spring up about it.....unless their teachings is of something they cannot perceive and therefore cannot know anything about...which begs the question as to how they can know it [mathematics] exists?
or for that matter how does it happen to work?

and what about metaphysics?

or love? you cant percieve it either.

so i disagree with your arguement.

you could be a very strict empirisist and maintain that maths, metaphysics and love do not exist, but that is not the human reality of the our situation, maths works , metaphysics has existed for millennia and everyone knows of love.

for empirisists i have always wondered does knowledge actually exist,

because it certainly cannot be percieved so how can we know anything about it???

do empirisists not presume that reason is knowledge when are argueing for empirisism with their reason?

anyway kant fairly solved that problem, and in my hasty understanding of him there is room for rationalism and empirism and for science and God.


as far as i could see the first post by bonkey did a good job of clearing up the arguement from causality. with the conclusion that it can prove neither,

ps :eek: shock horror ,maybe conceptual reason has its limitations

bonkey

transperson wrote:

by similar logic

If the mathematics cannot be perceived, how did a entire dicipline manage to spring up about it

Well, if mathematics cannot be perceived, then the initial premise that science is based on the perceptable, and religion on the impercaptable is automatically untrue, and the question being asked (based on that premise) no longer has any relevance, does it.

or love? you cant percieve it either.

Can you not? So there's no way that someone can know if they are in love or not?

I think you are confusing the tangible or the quantifiable with the perceptable. Either that, or the word "perceive" is being used in your descriptions in a manner which is not consistent with its general meaning.

jc

bonkey

transperson wrote:

shock horror ,maybe conceptual reason has its limitations

I coulda sworn thats what I was pointing out.

You can't prove God's existence, because any proof which would allow God to exist would also not require God to exist.

jc

transperson

the word "perceive" is being used in your descriptions in a manner which is not consistent with its general meaning

.

to perceive-to become directly aware of something through the sences particularly sight and hearing.

what general meaning are you refering to? is a general meaning something that is valid. general knowledge and pop meanings often fudge the concept into a general fuzzy idea.

Well, if mathematics cannot be perceived, then the initial premise that science is based on the perceptable, and religion on the impercaptable is automatically untrue, and the question being asked (based on that premise) no longer has any relevance, does it.

what? please explain

dont forget. science is not mathematics, science uses mathematics.science is based on what can be measured and classified. mathematics is its tool.

can you explain what love looks like or smells like ?:D

my point was that there is knowledge that does not occur through direct perception. maybe intuitive knowledge, emotional awareness, rational facts etc

if we are agreed on that then it would make sence that religious orders have some other knowledge other than sence perception on which they base their religious belief,

thus your earlier comment

If the divine cannot be perceived, how did a religious order manage to spring up about it.....unless their worship is of something they cannot perceive and therefore cannot know anything about...which begs the question as to how they can know it exists?

is not true.as other forms of knowledge are possible. and the religious adhereants can [or think they can] know something of what they worship.

perhaps reason[st thomas Aquinas for example] perhaps a sublime encounter[ st threse of Avila who is said to have naturally been at alevel very similar to what hindu mystics call Samadhi -direct experience of God] or perhaps a feeling, inner bliss and feelings of oneness. again my point is that it is possible to have knowledge that is not directly perceived.

how do you suppose it arose in every culture around the world. a perculiar phenomena, social factors creating some wild irrational idea for which there is absolutely no sencible evidence, out of nowhere? exposing the innate human need for something greater to attach themselves to? a complete fabricated idea? maybe!

we must try and see things from all points of veiw.

I coulda sworn thats what I was pointing out

.

exactly, you made a good point.

i was never arguing that god could be proven , i believe it cannot, philosophy has brought us to Kant and Schopeanhaur beyond which i cannot see any development and in their philosophy there is room for science and Maths and for the Will or ultimate reality. what the ultimate reality is is the question, Schopeanhaur was pessimistic about it, atheists seem to say that there is no ultimate reality or that it is neutral[im not 100% on what they have to say] i am optimistic about it and choose to adopt many eastren ideas from which i think i have some type of idea of God, the true unity, the Tao, Allah. this is my own conception and it fits perfectly well with science, evolution and neurodynamics. that is where belief comes in, existance is god and, everything has a place and is meaningful. its our goal to be one with existance and one with God.

the thrust being that we need to get rid of there daft ideas of eating the flesh of jesus or not letting women out of the house or channelling of ancient spirits [the new agey stuff] and all the false ideas we have regarding God that creats this problem in the first place.
the attempt to prove Christian God by the Christians and to Disprove God by the Atheists is a stupid and pointless affair that needs a new way of looking at things, because as long as there is believers and there is Atheists this problem will remain. i think the key is to reconceptualise or preferably deconceptualise the whole way of looking at the world and God. again atheists are recognising Christians Gods validity by arguing against it, IMO they need not do this.

maybe my meaning is not clear but once again this problem is not really a valid one from my point of view.

Le Rack

so anyone got any thoughts on the god is evil theory? it makes a certain degree of sense since good cant exist without evil and vice vearsa

Dades

transperson wrote:

how do you suppose it arose in every culture around the world. a perculiar phenomena, social factors creating some wild irrational idea for which there is absolutely no sencible evidence, out of nowhere? exposing the innate human need for something greater to attach themselves to? a complete fabricated idea? maybe!

If I may jump in again - yes to the above!

the attempt to prove Christian God by the Christians and to Disprove God by the Atheists is a stupid and pointless affair that needs a new way of looking at things, because as long as there is believers and there is Atheists this problem will remain.

Atheists should have no interest in "Disproving God", unless directly challenged by an enthusiastic believer. There is no agenda to convert, it's a personal belief - not a decision - a belief.

Unless you think this type of debate to be stupid and pointless? I'll only give any reasons I have if I'm pushed to.

bonkey

transperson wrote:

.

my point was that there is knowledge that does not occur through direct perception.

OK...Fair enough. I guess its a choice of semantics. Yours are quite presumably more accurate....this is obviously something you've done yoru homework on.

how do you suppose it arose in every culture around the world.

Which? Religion? I would suggest that religion has its roots as deeply entwined in our development as a species as the acquisition of speech and the ability to create tools. I would suggest that it predates global cultures. It didn't arise in every culture in the world, no more than speech did. The people brought it with them, as they formed cultures.

the attempt to prove Christian God by the Christians and to Disprove God by the Atheists is a stupid and pointless affair that needs a new way of looking at things,

You'll get no disagreement from me there.

again atheists are recognising Christians Gods validity by arguing against it, IMO they need not do this.

I would have said atheists argue for the non-existance of God - beit Christian in nature or otherwise - rather than against its existance.

No-one needs to argue against another belief system. When they choose to do so, however, I think the reasons for doing so are important.

jc

transperson

so anyone got any thoughts on the god is evil theory? it makes a certain degree of sense since good cant exist without evil and vice vearsa

maybe God is both evil and good at once.
maybe he contains the opposites.

the inference of evil from us to god would also fail if we are not in Gods image, or alternatively if God had no image.

Maybe people are not "hateful" and "evil" .from their own point of view perhaps they just had circumstances that make them think a certain way and it is justified.

who say beardy man "God" has the same idea of good and evil as some of us, who say we have the same idea of good and evil.just think...
Osama says America is evil.America says Osama is evil. which is really evil?

I'll only give any reasons I have if I'm pushed to.

hence the lazy bit, you can just be an atheist like that, no work, no thought just declare Im an atheist and voila!
then when the believer fails to provide concrete evidence[IMO there is no empirical evidence or indisputible proof], the atheist knows that he was right, he couldnt be proven wrong.
and besides if there was concrete evidence the atheist would then say its his belief and as we all know beliefs arent subject to evidence, so he gets away what ever the situation!

transperson

I would suggest that religion has its roots as deeply entwined in our development as a species as the acquisition of speech and the ability to create tools. I would suggest that it predates global cultures. It didn't arise in every culture in the world, no more than speech did. The people brought it with them, as they formed cultures.

fair description, development of anything including ideas is a truely complex thing to track, infinite factors are in play.

I would have said atheists argue for the non-existance of God - beit Christian in nature or otherwise - rather than against its existance.

to me it appears that Atheists shift the burden of proof, and dont argue for anything, merely try and counter the theists arguements. and when the thesist fails to prove God the atheist is secure in his righteousness.

BTW out of curiousity how does one argue for a non-existance?

Le Rack

hmm true, thats what i always debate in religion class when some one says something is "evil" "bad" whatever I sit there arguing that what the person saying this percieves as evil the person who did the thing mey believe they were doing the world some amount of good.... this could go on for a while....

WHEELER4

To point out my bias, I am a Christian. Always have been. But what increased my belief of God is Nature.

Anaxagoras, living in a pagan society with many Gods, came to the belief in One God. Ancient Greek philosophy is based on Nature. They took their cue from Nature.

I know that I have a heart. I have never seen my heart or my brain but I know that I have them. Just feeling the pulse at my wrist tells me I have a heart. That is why a doctor uses a stethescope. He doesn't have to see the lung itself to know that it is in trouble. These two examples are how logic is used.

Anaxagoras used this logic methodology when he looked in nature. In nature there is Order. There is One order. Order presupposes Intelligence. Intelligence is not free floating but is in something. That something is God. Order is made. Another dictum of the Greeks is that Chaos produces nothing so God is the originator of the cosmos, i.e. the Ordered universe.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all were monotheists. They continued the work of Anaxagoras. As Plato has the Cretan character in the Laws say, "Look on Nature, See God."

bonkey

WHEELER4 wrote:

Order presupposes Intelligence

I'm glad you underlined that bit...

Isn't this a supposition which literally requires that there be a god for it to be true? Then its placed inside an argument and used to reach the conclusion that the supposition is effectively founded on.

Why not simply? say "Order presupposes God, and thus...because we have order, we have God". Its effectively the same argument.

Similarly to Kelly's argument, I would also wonder whether or not God would itself be without Order, or if your conclusion of order presupposing intelligence does not also imply that God itself must have been created by a higher intelligence.

Another dictum of the Greeks is that Chaos produces nothing

Its just another belief. At a fine-enough level, everything that you perceive as ordered is really just a wide-angle view.

Look closely enough, and Chaos Theory, Quantum Uncertainty, and any other number of apparently chaotic systems are actually behind all of this order and stability that you see.

Now, one can suppose that behind the chaos and uncertainty there is, in fact, another level of order. There may well be - science has been hunting for such a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) or TOE (Theory of Everything) for some time now. But how will science ever know that its gotten as deep as one can go....that there isn't another level of chaos under the order, and another of order beneath that, and so on.

Chaos and Order are interesting terms, but I don't agree that one can draw conclusions from their existence.

jc

Dades

transperson wrote:

"I'll only give any reasons I have if I'm pushed to."

hence the lazy bit, you can just be an atheist like that, no work, no thought just declare Im an atheist and voila!
then when the believer fails to provide concrete evidence[IMO there is no empirical evidence or indisputible proof], the atheist knows that he was right, he couldnt be proven wrong.
and besides if there was concrete evidence the atheist would then say its his belief and as we all know beliefs arent subject to evidence, so he gets away what ever the situation!

I'm quite surprised at this comment. I think you've ignored the context of my remark to make your point.

That point was that atheists do not have an agenda. That it is not a requirement for them, unlike believers to proselytise followers with their own theories. Hence the point that I'll not go into the reasons behind my beliefs unless asked. That is not to say that atheists do not have a foundation for their beliefs (many of mine you can read for yourself). To suggest that because an atheist simply realises that the burden of proof does not lie with them, that they are lazy - is disingenuous.

BTW out of curiousity how does one argue for a non-existance?

The same way one argues for the existence of something invisible and intangible. With great difficulty.

WHEELER4 wrote:

I know that I have a heart. I have never seen my heart or my brain but I know that I have them. Just feeling the pulse at my wrist tells me I have a heart. That is why a doctor uses a stethescope. He doesn't have to see the lung itself to know that it is in trouble. These two examples are how logic is used.

But other people have seen a heart. No doubt you've seen pictures, or footage of a heart. Or a set of lungs. There is no leap of faith to believe in the existence of your organs.

WHEELER4 wrote:

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all were monotheists. They continued the work of Anaxagoras. As Plato has the Cretan character in the Laws say, "Look on Nature, See God.

Why do people quote other people in support of arguments. Especially ones that lived in a different age to us. Why the Christian God, Wheeler4? Why have you checked that particular box?

You say you have always been a Christian. If you had been born an Afghanistani Muslim in a rural village, do you think you would now be converted to Christianity?

transperson

Anaxagoras, living in a pagan society with many Gods, came to the belief in One God

i would dispute that, he seemed more of an atomist to me if i remember correctly, his account of the world does not give direct reference to one God as in a vaguely God like power.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all were monotheists

again very disputable, i can see why you would say that in particular Plato was a monotheist his philosophy has a very trancendental spin to it and the Church actually claimed and developed many of his and aristotles ideas-maybe that is why you see a similarity,
but to categorise them as such and claim them for the believers is quite a leap. if you think it is accurate then fair enough but i would suggest that you perehaps research Greek philosophy in more dept before using it to back up the case for God.

if ancient Greek philosophy could make a case for God existing and was reliable[they said alot of strange things], id say that it would have been discovered over the last 2000 years by at least some devotee.

Order presupposes Intelligence

i roll a dice 3 times and get 3 sixs, therefore i conclude that the dice is intelligent.
Chance creats what we human animals percieve as order, we are programed [so to speak] to recognise patterns - ever see a face in a cloud.
humans seek pattern and symetery[a pretty face is a symetrical one] because we see patterns[order] in nature does not mean that it is there.
we impose our structures of understanding[causality, time etc] upon the world and by doing so we order the world so that it is coherent.

transperson

I'm quite surprised at this comment. I think you've ignored the context of my remark to make your point.

fair point, but i am mildly peeved that atheism can be called a belief. surely it opposes belief and is based on the faculty of reason[the reason that there is no concrete proof for god].

that the Atheist cannot be proved wrong is a strange one.

does it mean that he is right?

no it means that he is right in the frame in which he is operating- the range of science and the phenomenal perceptable world.
he does not comment on the noumenal and yet maintains that he knows that there is no God.
how can he Know anything of the noumena, and specifically how can he rule out what many people and religions call God that fits with the reasoned metaphysics of westren civilisation.

again all a person can do is to suspend judgement on the noumena[i use noumena as the unperceptable ultimate reality] and hence be agnostic.

That is not to say that atheists do not have a foundation for their beliefs

agreed many and most do have large foundations on which they base there opinion, im not for a minute calling that into question

but the point is they do not need a foundation.
just as lazy believers do not need a foundation.

Dades

transperson wrote:

fair point, but i am mildly peeved that atheism can be called a belief. surely it opposes belief and is based on the faculty of reason[the reason that there is no concrete proof for god].

:rolleyes:

What is is then? A disbelief? I call it a belief because I don't claim to know the truth. It is just my belief that there is/are no gods as defined my definition of the term.

I suggested a while back that perhaps we are all agnostic. None of us can claim to know the reality of things, therefore like an agnostic we must admit ignorance. All we are left with then is either our belief, or our disbelief.

but the point is they do not need a foundation.
just as lazy believers do not need a foundation.

Except that almost always, people aren't born atheists. To genuinely claim you are one requires some sort of rejection of social norms. And this requires a foundation. I guess this is the point where lazy and genuine atheist are seperated. A genuine atheist won't stop at simply shaking off the shackles of their traditional beliefs.

And I'm trying not to be freaked out by you talking about me in the third person.

bonkey

transperson wrote:

that the Atheist cannot be proved wrong is a strange one.

does it mean that he is right?

Nope. No more than the inability to prove the Christian, Buddhist, etc. wrong means that they are right.

It means they cannot (to date) be proven wrong...no more.

specifically how can he rule out what many people and religions call God that fits with the reasoned metaphysics of westren civilisation.

Given that metaphysics does not pre-date religion, its support of belief isn't necessarily conclusive in any means. It can just as easily be seen as a retro-fitted explanation of what someone already believed to be true. If it wasn't, then the believers would simply reject it as incompatible.

again all a person can do is to suspend judgement on the noumena[i use noumena as the unperceptable ultimate reality] and hence be agnostic.

But then how can someone conclude that there is a god?
Surely they too must suspend judgement and conclude that they don't know. Thus, everyone should - by this logic - be agnostic, no?

Belief in either the existence or non-existence of a god (or gods) requires that one make a judgement. It seems strange that judging "aye" would be a valid conclusion, where "nay" would be invalid and should be replaced with "its impossible to know".

jc

transperson

im not talking about you in talking about the generic atheist! darn careless capitalisation!

semantics.
i am using belief is the sence that you believe in something for which there is no clear truth-truth requires justified true belief.
belief on its own may be neither true or justified.

for me it is your reasoned[justified in the context you are useing] belief that there is not Gods. so atheism should not be a straight belief which requires no rational justification, contrast to belief that God exists.

Nope. No more than the inability to prove the Christian, Buddhist, etc. wrong means that they are right.

It means they cannot (to date) be proven wrong...no more.

true , thanks for that!

Given that metaphysics does not pre-date religion, its support of belief isn't necessarily conclusive in any means. It can just as easily be seen as a retro-fitted explanation of what someone already believed to be true. If it wasn't, then the believers would simply reject it as incompatible

that is a good point but when by study of westren metaphysics you develope an outlook which then proceeds to be in tune with eastren knowledge arrived at by differing means[intuitive and meditative practices Vs reason] as Schopeanhaur did then it is safe to assume that they are telling you the same thing. in which case there is no retro fitting or incompatability.
when reason, intuition and revelation say similar things there is justification for belief. truth is another dimension that is harded to establish with matters like this if it is at all possible for us to find absolute truth.

But then how can someone conclude that there is a god

its a belief, there is no rational justification only the intuitive and revelatory and perhaps emotional.

my point being that for a self proclaimed atheist to say that he believes atheism to be right is not in my eyes coherent. it must be a reasoned belief -,the reason being there is no proof for God. but this leads to agnoticism not to Atheism. again you cannot prove a non existance.

its ok to believe in god because reason is not of the largest importance [you admit there is other forms of knowledge and reality] but its not ok to believe in atheism because reason is of the largest importance [you do not admit other forms of knowledge and reality].

note, i intuitively detect a note of inconsistancy in what i am saying. can anyone point it out.maybe not, im not sure.

Dades

transperson wrote:

my point being that for a self proclaimed atheist to say that he believes atheism to be right is not in my eyes coherent. it must be a reasoned belief -,the reason being there is no proof for God. but this leads to agnoticism not to Atheism. again you cannot prove a non existance.

its ok to believe in god because reason is not of the largest importance [you admit there is other forms of knowledge and reality] but its not ok to believe in atheism because reason is of the largest importance [you do not admit other forms of knowledge and reality].

note, i intuitively detect a note of inconsistancy in what i am saying. can anyone point it out.maybe not, im not sure.

Okay so what you are saying is that because reason is never going to prove the existence of a god, that it can be discarded in any argument for god, but not in an argument against god.

I can't accept that. I like Bonkeys remark:

Belief in either the existence or non-existence of a god (or gods) requires that one make a judgement. It seems strange that judging "aye" would be a valid conclusion, where "nay" would be invalid and should be replaced with "its impossible to know".

Disregarding traditional reason and logic because it could never support a case is an alien concept to me. But of course we are looking at the same issues from different plains. But isn't it somewhat of a double standard?

You can't deny the validity of a stance by attributing to it a higher burden of proof than that of preferred notions?

transperson

i gave this a bita thought,
and there was an inconsistancy

a long clarification and slight revaluation.

a truth is a justified true belief
a belief is the entire larger set of justified true belief,justified untrue belief,unjustified true belief and unjustified untrue belief.

firstly divide the world into the phenonenal [sence perceptable] and noumenal [not the sence perceptable]


person A only accepts rational and empirical knowledge, as is the norm.

empirical knowledge can have no grasp on the noumenal.

rational knowledge to can have no actual grasp of noumenal, it can only inform us that there is a possibility indeed probability of a noumenal world that is beyond sence perception. it cannot speculate as to the nature of this world. in short we cannot rationally concieve of the noumenal.

hence person A cannot have a rationally or empirically true opinion on the noumenal world, Brahman, the ultimate reality, what i am calling God.

hence based on the knowledge he accepts he must suspend judgment.

therefore by logic we should all be functionally agnostic, well everyone who accepts both empirical and rational knowledge as the only valid forms of knowledge.

now he can speculate on the noumenal in which case he could be an atheist or a worshipper. but taking the fields of knowledge he has accepted any opinions would be based on pure speculation. in short it would fit into the larger set of beliefs.

he would be not wrong would be a believer. and neither could be proved wrong in their belief. as we have already seen.

scepticism can still defeat rational and empirical knowledge.and call the whole thing into question.




however person B acknowledges empirical knowledge, rational knowledge, emotional knowledge, intuitive knowledge and we'll say trancendental possibilities of knowledge.

empirical knowledge can have no grasp on the noumenal.

rational knowledge to can have no grasp of the noumenal, it can only inform us that there is a possibility indeed certainty of a noumenal world that is beyond sence perception. it cannot speculate as to the nature of this world.

emotional knowledge cannot inform us on the noumenal.

intuitive knowledge such as the nature of space, causality, time, we all intuitively know time but cannot really describe it as well as examples such as the nature of the tao, or the sound of one hand clapping[a Kaon, a Zen practice to show the inherent drawbacks of conceptual reason]. this is knowledge that can grasp aspects of reality that are not obvious to the rational and empirical mind.

this trancendental knowledge includes altered states of cousiousness, perhaps the varieties of mystical experience. this is includes possible knowledge of the ultimate reality or the noumenal.

hence having accepted the possiblity of all this knowledge person B can have an opinion about the noumenal

hence he can have an intuitively or trancendentally true opinion about the noumenal.

[truth=justified, true, belief][intuitive, trancendental and emotional justification can only come from internal experience]

hence if he has relevant experience he can have a true opinion that noumenal exists and that god is the noumenal and that God exists.

and still regardless of what knowledge he accepts he can believe that there is a God.



i think that arguement clears up most problems and sets us up one a clearer playing pitch. whatever knowledge we accept dictates our veiw.

basically the final conclusion is that if what i called trancendental knowledge exists then God exists.

and i happen to believe it does.

scepticism can defeat this position ot course.
scepticism will not lead to Atheism only agnosticism.

these again are only my own ideas they have no real claim for actual truth.it seems consistant to me.
the divisions of knowledge while arbitary also seem reasonable.[ IMO all words and divisions are arbitary]

an argument against god

i dont think there is an arguement against God.
if there is then please tell me.

Dades

I won't deny it - I am teetering on the edge of confusion.

I think you are saying that there are two type of approaches that can be taken into account when contemplating the existence of a god. The rational/empirical approach, and the intuitive/transendental approach. Only the latter allows you the freedom to suppose the existence of a god.

I'm fine with that...

What I don't accept is that making a decision using this second plain of thought is the only way you can "know" something enough to have a "belief".

I understand where you are coming from with this theory - I really do. However it is because of where you are coming from that I don't think you can determine for all of us the validity of our beliefs/stances, call it what you will.

You see it as you have explained, but from your viewpoint - I see the exact opposite from mine. I understand you feel your intuitive approach allows you to see further than a logical one - but the simple fact is I have no faith in your approach - which unfortunately renders using it as an element in defining my standpoint to me, useless.

Similar to, "you should believe in god - because the bible says..." If you believe the bible to be a work of fiction then any argument with you using it is meaningless. [Bible reference an analogy only]

I think now I have fallen off that cliff...

transperson wrote:

i dont think there is an arguement against God.
if there is then please tell me.

Maybe specific gods, can be shown to be rubbish (e.g. the ones that live in volcanos).
But generally arguing against an invisible enemy leads to frothing at the mouth and should be (but rarely is) avoided!

transperson

I think you are saying that there are two type of approaches that can be taken into account when contemplating the existence of a god. The rational/empirical approach, and the intuitive/transendental approach. Only the latter allows you the freedom to suppose the existence of a god.

no, it is more one approach. notice how what you called the intuitive/trancendental approach acknowledges and incorporates the rational/empirisist approach. it assumes that other knowledge is available and makes use of it.

What I don't accept is that making a decision using this second plain of thought is the only way you can "know" something enough to have a "belief".

once again you can believe anything at any time as long as you actually believe in it.beliefs can be unjustified and untrue, look at the definition of belief at the start of the last post.

However it is because of where you are coming from that I don't think you can determine for all of us the validity of our beliefs/stances

again the empirisist and the rationalist and the rationalist/empirisist are all valid within the system described.
beliefs are ever only valid if they are justified and true. if they are rational or empirical they will be demonstratable.

look back at arguement for person A to see that a belief in Atheism is not justified outside the empirical/rational knowledge sets and hence not demonstratably valid in reality. since it cant be proven wrong either within the larger knowledge sets it remains in the broad belief set.

similarly

look back at arguement for person A to see that a belief in God is not justified outside[or inside]the empirical/rational knowledge sets and hence not demonstratably valid in reality [ beardy man "God" is demonstratably invalid in the rational and empirical knowledge sets as God is know to be seen and noone can reason his existance]. since it cant be proven wrong either within these knowledge sets it remains in the broad belief set.

but the simple fact is I have no faith in your approach

obviously, as you only accept the rational and empirical knowledge sets as valid. that is where you and me differ.

but if you only accept these knowledge sets then you must accept that Atheism is just as unjustified as the theism you are ruling out.arguement for person A.

renders using it as an element in defining my standpoint to me, useless

do you agree with the arguement from person A. if you do then this way of looking at things will be of use when defining your standpoint.

Similar to, "you should believe in god - because the bible says..." If you believe the bible to be a work of fiction then any argument with you using it is meaningless.

this brings out the point again that if you do not accept intuitive and trancendental knowledge of the ultimate reality then you will not conclude that God exists you must conclude that you do not know and be agnostic[note that it does not prevent you from having this belief in God, it as always, is perfectly ok to believe whatever you want, the truth of this belief is another story]


everyone is free to believe whatever they want.

as i am of the opinion that reality is a continous whole and ultimately all one. hence knowledge describes the same one reality.
it follows that every TRUE form of knowledge should be compatable.

knowledge from different forms such as reason and intuition should tell us the one thing, as should empirical and trancendental knowledge.of course they do not all refer to the same things so are not interchangable and are all needed to gain a deeper insight into the nature of our reality.

they are all ways of looking at the same one reality both the phenomenal and the noumenal aspects of it and if what each says is true the it will be compatable with all other true knowledge.

subjective is a take on the objective from a perspective.

two TRUE subjective takes should say the same thing about the one objective thing[if maybe in different ways]

all knowledge however you divide it up is of reality.

i think that makes sence anyway, it doesnt sound too bad :rolleyes:


volcano Gods-supposedly in the volcanos and within the sence data or empirical knowledge set.proved wrong when you empirically test the God's existence by looking in the volcano.

again i contend that you can only prove something wrong if it falls within the rational and empirical knowledge sets.
as God is neither measureable[empirical] nor falls within the verbal analytical knowledge set[rational] a positive demonstratable proof against his existance is impossible.
i am a total blank on how to argue against god, seriously if you have any ideas please write describe them.

bonkey

transperson wrote:

as God is neither measureable[empirical] nor falls within the verbal analytical knowledge set[rational] a positive demonstratable proof against his existance is impossible.

Reading that line reminded me of the invisible pink unicorns that were mentioned (in this thread?) some time back. There is no positive demonstrable proof against their existence either. Does this mean we are wrong to conclude the don't exist?

i am a total blank on how to argue against god, seriously if you have any ideas please write describe them.

Good question.

But do you really need to argue against the existence of God? Say you begin with the assumption that there is no God, and see if you can conclude that either you cannot be sure you are right, or you are sure you are wrong.

After all, if we didn't take that approach, we couldn't say that we believe there are no invisible pink bunnies

I must go and read more on western metaphysics, but currently, I'm tending to disagree with the notion that their ultimate conclusions coinciding with the seperately-arrived-at conclusions of eastern philosophy and belief is necessarily meaningful. I haven't thought it fully through (and I sure ain't in any way formally educated about this stuff), but I can see several other reasons why similar conclusions can be reached by seperate means.

So, just taking that as an example....the coincidence of conclusion (or belief) does not in any way suggest to me that there is a God. Now, assume I've done that with every argument for the existence of God that I can find or conceive, and every time I've come up blank. SHould I be agnostic, or atheist.

One could say that I must concede that there might be a God, which is a fair point - the evidence isn't conclusive, so I can't be certain in my belief, and therefore should notionallybe agnostic rather than atheist.

That would also be true, however, of anyone who had looked at the evidence and come to the overwhelming conclusion that there must be a God. They are again basing a belief/concusion on - for lack of a better term - faith, and should equally admit the possibility that they may be wrong. Does that make them agnostic as well?

The same argument can sureloy be applied from a start-point of agnosticism. If one can look at the evidence and arguments for a God and say "I don't believe they point to a God, but rather to aspects of the human psyche which are creating fiction to avoid dealing with scary thoughts"....are you not in effect arguing against the existence of God?

jc

Dades

Trans - you are melting my head.

You keep coming back to this point about disproving the existence of God, and how reason etc. disallows you from doing this.

And Bonkey and myself continue to point out that there is no onus on an atheist to disprove anything.

You have your beliefs and your methodology in reaching them. Good for you. Personally I feel your beliefs are built on far more shaky foundations than mine - but you would obviously disagree and I think we can leave it at that.

A belief does not have to be proven to believe it, even in the sphere of the rational.

If you catch me standing over a bullet ridden corpse with a smoking gun, you are entitled to believe that I murdered that person. Does the fact that you were not actually there when I pulled the trigger mean you do not believe I did it?

Like Bonkey I'm not trained in this kind of thinking. But I know what I believe. The Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is especially fitting here.

It is ridiculous to say that because the existence of something cannot be disproven that it "may" exist, and therefore any belief of it's non-existence is flawed. In that case anybody could assert anything and be content in the knowledge that no-one can state with any certainty they are wrong.

but if you only accept these knowledge sets then you must accept that Atheism is just as unjustified as the theism you are ruling out.arguement for person A.

No - under any knowledge set. A belief in the existence of something must be justified. A disbelief in the non-existence of that same element need not. Just because we are told there is a pink unicorn, must we (knowing that to try is impossible) disprove it?

If stances are determined by knowledge, then we are all agnostic. If they are determined by belief then you are whatever you truly believe to be - regardless of what others will presume to tell you.

transperson

The Atheist-

my request to argue against God, is an attempt to show that there is not an arguement against God only an assumption about the noumenal world that there is no God.
and and as an assumption it fits into the larger category of belief.

firstly i argue that the noumenal world exists and secondly that i believe that essentially God is the noumenal world based justification from intuitive and trancendental knowledge which i tentatively accept.

hence the Analogy of the pink unicorn to God is not valid. by definition the noumenal or God* is not potentially a phenomenal object that could be seen and touched-or empirically demonstrated.

this analogy is valid only when you maintain that a God is a phenomenal object[a beardy guy in the clouds or a fire breathing volcano god]. and i agree that pink unicorns and firebreathing volcano gods do not exist because we cannot sence them and a requirement for their existance is physical presence here and now.

*the noumenal is onmipresent, ultimate reality and the Truth.
God is omnipresent, ultimate reality and the Truth.[even christians will tell you that]
for me the noumenal is God

It is ridiculous to say that because the existence of something cannot be disproven that it "may" exist

how, i think we will agree that any proposition may be true until it is proven wrong. that does no mean it is true, but we do not know until it is proven wrong.

any belief of it's non-existence is flawed

and

A belief does not have to be proven to believe it

i know.look at the definition of a belief in above posts[its very broad]. i think you are confusing the word belief, each key word i am using has strict a definition.

there is no onus on an atheist to disprove anything

that is why it remains a completely unjustified but valid belief.
i'll throw in the lazy accusation again . the atheist need not do anything except believe. he can never really know the truth [have a true justified belief] of God's potential existance or anything to do with the noumenal world based on the knowledge he accepts as truth[empirical sence knowledge and rational verbal knowledge].

If stances are determined by knowledge, then we are all agnostic. If they are determined by belief then you are whatever you truly believe to be - regardless of what others will presume to tell you

.

If stances are determined by knowledge, then we are all agnostic

stances of truth are determined by knowledge other stances maybe not.read on....

true belief is determined by true knowledge[a given-you believe what you know to be true]

and stances are be determined by belief, as you say

then true stances depend on true knowledge.[look at the quote- in truth we must all be agnostic well considering only rational and empirical knowledge]

thus other stances that are based purely on the larger set of belief need have no bearing on true knowledge.

now working back...

the atheist only accepts rational and empirical knowledge

if as a stance atheism is to be true then the atheists beliefs must be true

if the beliefs are true there must be true knowledge ie that God does not exist anywhere.

but no rational or empirical knowledge can tell us of the noumenal

so the atheist cannot know for sure that god do not exist in the noumenal.

he cannot not know if his belief is true

he cannot know if his stance is true.

thus atheism as a stance is based purely on rational and empirical truth about the rational and empirical domains and purely on belief about the rest of reality**

thus if he is still an atheist it is a matter of belief that cannot be justified.

** you could deny the existence of any other reality, but would you want to do that? where would sensation come from? and anyway you could not know for sure if there was no other aspects to reality, it would remain a belief.

Personally I feel your beliefs are built on far more shaky foundations than mine

feeling is good


i think maybe we should leave it at that, im kinda repeating myself

anyway cheers The Atheist it wasnt a bad discussion