• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

If God exists,


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 July 2010 - 12:56 AM

For those who wish to postulate a God, the only coherent stance would be deism. In which case God's isolation from humanity would render any language useless. An omnipotent God presumably doesn't have any superfluous habits.

*I had to...*

anthropomorphic deity(s) or existential 'being'? hmmmmm, what's greater? i would say existential being is......
i would define 'GOD' as that which nothing greater can be conceived.


*cough cough* ontological argument, *cough cough*

:)


http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_4_1
Plantinga’s formulation of the argument which I like.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

#32 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 13 July 2010 - 10:25 PM

For those who wish to postulate a God, the only coherent stance would be deism. In which case God's isolation from humanity would render any language useless. An omnipotent God presumably doesn't have any superfluous habits.

*I had to...*

anthropomorphic deity(s) or existential 'being'? hmmmmm, what's greater? i would say existential being is......
i would define 'GOD' as that which nothing greater can be conceived.


*cough cough* ontological argument, *cough cough*

:)



http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_4_1
Plantinga’s formulation of the argument which I like.


1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.


Define the trait of "greatness". Do you find in the physical world any such trait, disconneted from our own subjective sense ? There are tangibles, that can be measured, but there is no thing that would be "great" in the same sense that there are things with "velocity" or "weight".

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.


I guess only if in this possible world there was no problem of reductio ad absurdum - who made the maker ? This isn't a case of certain arrangement of atoms and laws governing them, that could have infinite nunber of variants given infinite nubmer of possible worlds. The reduction to absurd problem appears in every possible universe.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.


Why exactly is that ? This would be like saying - "if there are kangaroos in Australia, there are kangaroos all over the world".


6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


No it doesn't, but there are people working to make one ;)

#33 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 14 July 2010 - 11:59 AM

Shit, above I meant of course "regressio ad infinitum" , that's what happens when you try to be a smart ass :blush: .

Edited by chris w, 14 July 2010 - 12:01 PM.


#34 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 July 2010 - 11:39 PM

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

chris w
Define the trait of "greatness". Do you find in the physical world any such trait, disconneted from our own subjective sense ? There are tangibles, that can be measured, but there is no thing that would be "great" in the same sense that there are things with "velocity" or "weight".


SHADOWHAWK
Plantinga conceives of God as a being which is "maximally excellent" in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." Using Anslem's construct, premise one deals with the greatest thing a person can conceive. If you can conceive a greater than all, the argument works.

The idea of a maximally great being is intuitively a coherent idea, and so it seems plausible that such a being could exist. In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor. But the concept of a maximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima facie warrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.

We started with the the logical possibility of God's existence to its actuality to which I turn, after mentioning the physical world which you referenced. There are more things in the world that are real than just the physical.

THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

THE WORLD OF INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules (and the possibility of breaking them)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

Both are real and only part of Anslem's exercise of thinking big about "greatness."
http://www.amazon.co...79139663&sr=1-2

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

chris w
I guess only if in this possible world there was no problem of reductio ad absurdum - who made the maker ? This isn't a case of certain arrangement of atoms and laws governing them, that could have infinite nunber of variants given infinite nubmer of possible worlds. The reduction to absurd problem appears in every possible universe.


SHADOWHAWK
God was not made.
http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0310247101
http://www.thischris...istence-of.html
http://www.challies....h-edgar-andrews

I wont go into the details here. This touches on the Anthropic Principal and KALAM argument.
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=7579
http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html

Premises (2)-(5) of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then He must exist. The principal issue to be settled with respect to Plantinga's ontological argument is what warrant exists for thinking the key premiss "It's possible that a maximally great being exists" to be true. (6)

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


SHADOWHAWK
I will see where you want to go with this and take it from there.

Thanks for the civil and reasoned way you are approaching this. :)

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 July 2010 - 02:24 AM.


#35 Riceater

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Texas

Posted 01 August 2010 - 03:10 AM

God speaks in a language called static (or silence if you prefer)

This^

#36 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 01 August 2010 - 05:37 PM

If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.


Wow...this has to be the most hopelessly flawed attempt at "logic" that I have ever witnessed.

I would agree with Moody Blue that thise interested in the concept of metaphysics should visit the philosophy of Alan Watts.
  • like x 1

#37 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:47 PM

God speaks in a language called static (or silence if you prefer)

This^


Oh yeah, he's been suspiciously silent since ever

#38 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 02 August 2010 - 08:28 PM

If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.


Wow...this has to be the most hopelessly flawed attempt at "logic" that I have ever witnessed.

I would agree with Moody Blue that thise interested in the concept of metaphysics should visit the philosophy of Alan Watts.


So you disagree that in a infinite multi universe it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist? I have been a fan of Alan Watts for years and have read all his books an listened to hundreds of his tapes but have never heard or read him say an arguement like this is flawed. You won’t find any duscussio on this in Watts. If you claim there is, cite where?
http://www.amazon.co...9670&sr=8-2-ent

You complain my logic is flawed but then offer none of your own. Lets hear it. :)

#39 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 02 August 2010 - 09:17 PM

So you disagree that in a infinite multi universe it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist? I have been a fan of Alan Watts for years and have read all his books an listened to hundreds of his tapes but have never heard or read him say an arguement like this is flawed. You won’t find any duscussio on this in Watts. If you claim there is, cite where?
http://www.amazon.co...9670&sr=8-2-ent


I never said nor implied that Watts ever discussed "Plantinga’s formulation" or anything like it.

From my comprehensive reading of Watts, he certainly had to desire to try "prove" the existence of God, er- "a maximally great being". If you think that Alan Watts believed in a supernatural God-being, then I would have to assume that you are not too familiar with his philosophy. He did use the term "God" now and again, especially when discussing or referencing exoteric belief systems, but he used the term symbolically. Other times he used the term, it had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of a supernatural God-being.

Watt's was very vocal in his opposition of the literal interpretation of religion. To him, religion is myth, and "God" was the ultimate myth. "God", to the mystics, is a metaphor, a symbol, etc and not a literal being.


You complain my logic is flawed but then offer none of your own. Lets hear it. :)


You said that this was "Plantinga’s formulation."

Edited by Soma, 02 August 2010 - 10:00 PM.


#40 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:19 PM

From my comprehensive reading of Watts, he certainly had to desire to try "prove" the existence of God, er- "a maximally great being".



Sorry, I meant to say that he certainly had NO desire to prove the existence of "God".

#41 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:34 AM

Shadowhawk:
So you disagree that in a infinite multi universe it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist? I have been a fan of Alan Watts for years and have read all his books an listened to hundreds of his tapes but have never heard or read him say an agreement like this is flawed. You won't find any discussion on this in Watts. If you claim there is, cite where?
http://www.amazon.co...9670&sr=8-2-ent


Soma:
I never said nor implied that Watts ever discussed "Plantinga's formulation" or anything like it.


Good, Both you and I know he didn't do it. As for his views it depends upon which part of his life you are talking about. It is immaterial to my post. I would call Watts a christian Buddhist with a splash of booz, a father of San Francisco hippydom of the 60s..

Soma:
From my comprehensive reading of Watts, he certainly had to desire to try "prove" the existence of God, er- "a maximally great being". If you think that Alan Watts believed in a supernatural God-being, then I would have to assume that you are not too familiar with his philosophy. He did use the term "God" now and again, especially when discussing or referencing exoteric belief systems, but he used the term symbolically. Other times he used the term, it had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of a supernatural God-being.


I am very familiar with Watts, Watts spent most of his life searching and while I like and enjoy him a lot. he was a troubled soul. In Watts case we should say God was a troubled bag of bones. :)
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Alan_Watts
http://www.amazon.co...8186&sr=8-2-ent

Just because Watts did not discuss the greatness of God you seem to be claiming it is illogical if he somewhere did or if we do.. He was a Buddhist and if you are familiar with him why would he? I don't think he ever recovered from being kicked out of the Anglican Church.

Watt's was very vocal in his opposition of the literal interpretation of religion. To him, religion is myth, and "God" was the ultimate myth. "God", to the mystics, is a metaphor, a symbol, etc and not a literal being.


OK.

You complain my logic is flawed but then offer none of your own. Lets hear it. :)


You said that this was "Plantinga's formulation."


Yes...

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 August 2010 - 01:46 AM.


#42 informaj

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 December 2010 - 09:52 PM

It seems to me that something as unlimited as God can and will do whatever IT wants, whenever IT wants, however IT wants, wherever IT wants for/to anyone/anything IT wants. Reception, acceptance, perception, awareness, understanding, and all the rest are up to those of us working within our limitations...unless we can become aware and functioning as the Souls we are--which are also unlimited--as which, we can learn to experience God and ITs communication in all of ITs various and unlimited ways. To learn to do that, one may find eckankar.org to be of some help. Of course, don't expect one's mind, a limited tool, to be capable of receiving or appreciating everything that the unlimited Soul experiences/perceives. Those experiences for which there are no words cannot be adequately conveyed via language, a tool of the mind. One could ask--Which is more beneficial to us--dragging one tiny, tiny aspect of God into this very limited world where it might never be recognized by someone else for what it truly is, and maybe not even by us--or elevating/improving our abilities as Soul so we might experience more and more of what God and ITs expression truly is without filters and limitations. Along the way, one begins to learn what this means to how one lives one's life and what these experiences have to do with one's very existence and the existence of others around us. It's not just theory. Theories are often paralyzed by their own arguments and limitations. It's so much more. But that is up to you to decide and prove to yourself. You may not be able to prove it to anyone else. But those who have experienced it for themselves will have a sense of what you have experienced and know that you have had it your way.

#43 wowser

  • Guest
  • 95 posts
  • 69
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 12 March 2012 - 07:32 PM

God speaks in whatever language... u only have to listen! lol!

#44 steampoweredgod

  • Guest
  • 409 posts
  • 94
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:57 PM

god's language is mathematics, geometry, and compassion/selfless love. god speaks through the very nature of reality/mind/the universe itself.

I could reluctantly agree on the first aspect ( meanig - if a believed in God, that's what I would think ) but not on the compassion / selfless love, to me that sounds absolutely antropomorphic, like saying that if there is one good human father, then God is for example thousend times more like that. I think that if God existed, then his "thoughts" and "emotions" could not even be adequatly named by confined brains such us ours, we could not even begin to comprehend how God is.

Compassion is something you feel for somebody in trouble when you don't know how to help or know but cannot, I don't think God could ever be in such situation. And if he loves us, why is there any kind of physical / psychological suffering down here ? Why would he put us through a test if his love is endless, he would not have to sort the good humans from the bad humans, but make us all "good", why the trouble ?


I personally don't know but I try to visualize it from a Master Control Program's perspective in relation to functions. Really if you see intelligent beings as basically functions, even human programmers would have a good laugh at your suffering. To actually care you've to visualize intelligent being as being more, and still if the logic dictates action may not really deviate any way.


All physics seems computable in principle. So that even language itself may very well have restraints tied by computability. Computational equivalence has been suggested(see new kind of science wolfram), basic rules lead to universal computation capability(see rule 110), and given resources computers are able to generate virtual enviroments of amazing complexity in terms of physical law manifestation and sensory stimulation. That both body and mind, the universe and its underlying computation may be one opens the hypothetical possibility of manipulating reality not only within cyberspace but outside cyberspace, a science of existence or reality manipulation(which would definitely put atomic weaponry to shame, so it is good idea to verify possibility.).


so you're saying that god's language would be math and geometry, but NOT love?!?!?!?!

Yes, basically that's what I'm saying, I dont get where this surprise comes from, like I said something totally crazy. If God existed he would be working in sync with the laws of universe, as they could be considered his "thoughts" but love just doesn't fit with this at all to me. Why would he create us in this material form in order to love after that ? That sounds like a kid building LEGO castle and then admiring what he built. God could very well just "imagine" us and love this images, no need to go all the way and make us from scratch.


perhaps 'god' didnt create the universe, or us for that matter.


Then his love for us would be an even stranger case, a kind of love somehow meaningless, because fruitless. He would be some sort of a "sub - optimal" God, one that can do neat physical tricks for example (a miracle here and there ), but not able to, say, "reedem our souls" and "make the Universe anew" whatever that meant exactly, he would not be much different from a lover longing for the other one, divided by the ocean. I don't care for such godly love that cannot do much good for me in the end. Why would I worship a god potent, but not omnipotent ?


I'm not entirely sure, receiving some thing from some one one loves is necessary for one to love some one or some thing. Take the friend zone example, usually occuring from females to males(but it can occur in the opposite direction). Females have been seen to reach O-state from reading, breastfeeding, exercising, imagining, riding a bus, walking, daydream, etc. It sounds very intriguing actually, in some cases you don't even need to do anything to stimulate to highest levels of pleasure, so one ask need something exceed friend zone or platonic state to reach a higher state, is it not even ridiculous to postulate anything above platonic love or ideal love?

In this world filled with constant decay, and the corruption that is culture, one may very well learn to love the incorruptible ideal above and beyond the real in its limited state, eventually to undo the real for an ideal state at any and all costs becomes a reasonable solution, a final solution.

God was not made.


If you put determinism into play, it becomes an inevitability, and would be considered self-made, or spontaneously organized to a higher state.

God speaks in whatever language... u only have to listen! lol!

Yet imply any connection however remote from ideal to real and viceversa, despite logically being self-evident, and prepare for some pain.


Actually if it only started self-fulfilling prophecies it would produce an endless barrage of self-inflicted pain.

Despite the oddness of such, even I view pain as self-inflicted in some sense, it is like throwing stones at the sky, gravity would do the rest and eventually you'd land at the hospital. An even more potent being able to do more elaborate things, could actually inflict a lot of pain and distribute it around.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 21 March 2012 - 08:59 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users