1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Many proofs for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Theism' started by Link, May 10, 2019.

  1. Link

    Link Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +21
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    You misunderstood.
     
  2. Terry Sampson

    Terry Sampson ζει

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2019
    Messages:
    251
    Ratings:
    +146
    I was afraid of that. Because I don't know what I wrote that tells you that I misunderstood, I now have to decide whether
    • I should walk away or
    • Review and rethink what you wrote and what I wrote, and find my error or
    • Ask you for a hint or hints to find my error.
    What do you recommend?
     
  3. Link

    Link Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +21
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    Hint: The proof for Oneness of God is exactly the same.
     
  4. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,074
    Ratings:
    +2,391
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    One thing I've learnt from this thread is that you only answer questions you like and you only answer the parts of them you like.

    Since that's not persuasive, perhaps you might consider addressing the substantive issues that people have raised in response to your post. One reason you might wish to do that is that the alternative is unhelpful to your cred.
     
  5. Salvador

    Salvador Conscious Being

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    3,137
    Ratings:
    +938
    Religion:
    Matrixism and Swedenborgianism
    God, defined as our genetic code's creator, is not necessarily the same being as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent theistic supernatural deity. The logical supposition is that such a supernatural theistic being doesn't actually exist until there is otherwise real evidence of such deity. The nonsensical assumption is that such a supernatural being really does exist until unproven.

    A most powerful being doesn't necessitate an all powerful being who controls everything.
     
    #85 Salvador, May 12, 2019
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
  6. Jim

    Jim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,060
    Ratings:
    +866
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    I think that he's made it clear that his purpose in this thread is not to have any discussion with anyone, it's to give a lecture. We have no part in it except as students to ask questions which may or may not be answered, to understand better what he's teaching us. My understanding of what he has taught us so far is that if we agree that his God is possible, then we're agreeing that we haven't found any way to prove that it does not exist. I agree with that statement.

    As I see it, adding the word "necessarily" in his definition is redundant. If existing is part of the definition of God, then anything that we call "God" must necessarily exist, or it isn't God, according to that definition. So it reduces to defining God as something that exists. By itself, that could be anything that we agree exists. Now I suppose that he'll add qualifications to that definition, defining "God" as something that exists and also has certain qualities. If we agree that it would be possible for something with those qualities to exist, then we're not denying that it exists, which he's equating with agreeing that it does exist. That's all I can see him saying up to this point.
     
  7. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,074
    Ratings:
    +2,391
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    As far as I can tell, no one has a definition of a real god, one that's not imaginary, one that exists in nature.

    There isn't even a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have that a false candidate would not.

    Those facts strongly support the notion that gods are imaginary.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,085
    Ratings:
    +5,122
    Religion:
    None
    Agreed. And if it's not convincing, it's not proof if proof is defined as that which convinces.

    As no number or combination of words can reveal a god, these proof-of-god arguments all fail.

    Also, attempting to define something into existence has to be a losing proposition.

    Likewise with a contingent living god. The use of the word necessary seems to be gratuitous here. May a god or gods exist, maybe not. If they do, maybe they are necessary, or maybe they are contingent.

    It's possible that I have three children. Does that mean that I do? Did I just prove something? It's also possible that I have four children. Did I just prove that I have both three and four children? That's the quality of your proof.
     
  9. Link

    Link Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +21
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    Eternalness is a possibility (there is nothing irrational about it being possible).

    Now Eternal existence if exists has two possibities:

    (1) It just happened to be always there.
    (2) It's something that is default state to the extent it can't be any other way, it's impossible to be other way.

    When we think of greatness in perfect ultimate form, it's not it just happens God was some way and it turns out that is the reality we have to live with but God could've been a different type of being or have different qualities.

    In fact, there is nothing irrational of the idea of necessary being. It's not incoherent.

    This proves a necessary being is possible and we know if a necessary being is possible, it in fact, implies it exists.

    Now I understand that as soon as you say a necessary being is possible, you imply it exists. I understand that. But there is nothing incoherent about the possibility of a Necessary being. That it's not logically impossible a necessary being exists.

    I've already explained above how even if it's more rational even if the necessity itself didn't imply it exists, that eternal existence would be something that had to be the way it is and there couldn't be alternative in any possible world.

    Another way to prove God is possible is to say Oneness of God can be proven if God is possible. And we went through a proof that if God is possible, why he would be One. The oneness of God like I showed in earlier post shows his greatness is such that necessity is implied by fact nothing can exist without dependency on it (independent existence aside from God would make God impossible).
     
    #89 Link, May 12, 2019
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
  10. Link

    Link Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +21
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    I think if necessity is seen to be coherent as far existence goes, then, it can remembered that God exists when realizing he is a necessary being. That is a better way to phrase it. You can't define things into existence, but we can see God existing by remembering what he is. If he is necessary, and that is implied by our conceiving of him, then there is no tricks here, no defining into existence, we see that by thinking of Him, we realize necessity of existence is implied.

    In fact, it's impossible to prove oneness of God (that is other gods can't exist) without the ontological proof that God is a Necessary being. If oneness of God can proven, then his existence being necessary is also implied by that.
     
  11. Link

    Link Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +21
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    The question just comes down to one thing and one thing only: "is necessity of existence a perceivable quality".
     
  12. Ponder This

    Ponder This Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    987
    Ratings:
    +278
    Religion:
    i am not
    I agree.
    I also see that a lot of people posting in this thread have failed to understand the argument that you have put forth here. They have offered other arguments which fail to address your argument or have put forth strawmen against your argument...

    However, as you acknowledge, there is a real problem with the proof you have presented:

    Why is God 'possible'?

    You further elaborate 'rational possible'. In a different thread I had to argue quite hard when people were claiming a proof of the non-existence of God using the famous Argument from Evil... and this argument ran afoul of the very same problem that your proof has run into: 'logical possibility' This is non-trivial: you cannot assume it to be so. You must prove it or the argument falls flat on its face.

    How do you know 'eternalness' is (rational) possible?
    ('being without beginning or end', 'continuing without interruption; perpetual')
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Link

    Link Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +21
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    Better question is do we know?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,583
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Your entire argument presupposes the existence of what you are trying to prove. That does not work.
     
  15. Ponder This

    Ponder This Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    987
    Ratings:
    +278
    Religion:
    i am not
    "This too shall pass."

    The story goes that a sultan consulted his wise men for a phrase to keep him sober in times of great joy and uplift him in times of great sorrow and that the wise men engraved a ring for him with a phrase of wisdom.

    It means that all things in human experience are temporary (not eternal).

    "And this, too, shall pass away."

    It would seem that we do know that all things in human experience are temporary (not eternal).
     
  16. Shadow Link

    Shadow Link Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    468
    Ratings:
    +149
    I agree that you do.
     
  17. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,074
    Ratings:
    +2,391
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Nicely put.

    But knowledge and experience (organized, process-ready memory) are the product of physical brain functions, and the idea that they involve or generate 'levels of existence' appears to be subjective and personal, not aspects of objective reality. If that's wrong, if they do indeed refer to aspects of reality, then 'level of existence' will have a definition in physics which I'd be interested to learn.

    Meanwhile 'is' and 'is not' seem to be the only 'levels of existence' on the table.
     
  18. Shadow Link

    Shadow Link Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    468
    Ratings:
    +149
    You don't think subjective and personal aspects can reach objective reality and be part of 'levels of existence'?
     
  19. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,074
    Ratings:
    +2,391
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    A great deal of research is going into finding and describing the physical processes that generate subjective and personal experiences, and since better brain-research tools started to become available in the 1990s, progress has been enormous, though not nearly as enormous as the task.

    That won't alter the subjective experience of perceiving the world through the combined input of the senses. If you're a human, 'me' and 'everything else' are two different realms. I've never stopped revisiting, and trying to advance, my understanding of subjective and objective, but I'm very confident that reality is the world external to the self, the place where you get your air, water, food, shelter, companions, resources, mate, society.

    Whereas, as a wise person once remarked, probably rather acidly, If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I have no reason to think either supernatural or paranormal experiences are reflections of reality.
     
  20. Shadow Link

    Shadow Link Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    468
    Ratings:
    +149
    Where do you stand with dreams and imagination as reflections of reality?

    With supernatural and paranormal experiences, understanding personification can go a long way. For myself, it does reflect from natural reality. With that in mind, lessons can be written objectively, no?
     
Loading...