Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 9:02 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 12:39 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 4:03 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 8:57 am

SB!

To take one question at a time, the reason it 'stops at God' because the ontological & cosmological argument says it does. Correct?

3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.

SB!

Thanks for your thoughts there. What do you mean that it makes no sense? You know, it (the ontological/cosmological argument) is based upon mathematical truths (a priori analytical analysis) about a universal accepted concept of God? I don't mean to sound so 'succinct', but that's the jist of the argument, or at least that's what is behind the logic of it. In other words, its conclusion is like mathematic's.

Too, I'm also thinking the rubber duck analogy would not be the appropriate analogy. That's because the concept of a 'rubber duck' does not include consciousness and the like. Maybe you mean to say 'super-human' or an 'absurd-human' or an 'illogical-human' or even 'finite human' but am not sure... .

Anyway, I can certainly appreciate your notion of subjectivity/objectivity because I've enjoyed studying that at great length-awhile back. Thank you. First, are you suggesting objective truths, like mathematical truths that describe the universe, are irrelevant to this analogy? Too, if mathematical truths are metaphysically abstract by their nature, are we faced with yet another paradox relative to figuring out objectivity associated with physical existence with life in it? In other words, isn't causation itself, logical?

Assuming the answers are no and yes/yes respectfully, should we conclude (I know this is a big leap from just one simple analogy) that all is Subjectivity? (But that might suggest 'Subjective Idealism', which would not square with, say, an Atheist's belief system... .)

Being a big fan of SK, of course I embrace the notion of subjective truths, but if there are no objective truths, what are the implications?

Just as I'm sure you're aware, there are all sorts of contradictions within those simple questions, but because perceiving 'reality' is such a perplexing subject (the nature of), I suppose parsing the differences between Subjectivity/Objectivity is as good a place as any, to start.

To me Aselm was just one more person making guesses based on not much information. The idea that God must be real because we cannot conceive of anything greater is not logical. You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines

It is simply imagination. Pure math demonstrates that coherent and consistent mathematical models can be determined that lack any physical correlates, unlike the models of physics. The issue to me, then, is not that objects of imagination are only real to the individual doing the imagining, rather that imagination is underestimated for its own sake. That is, imagination need not have physical equivalences to be potent. In that, I probably accord somewhat with you and Kierkegaard.

However, I think that objective truths do exist, that the existence of stars, planets and moons and other entities that preceded life are objectively true, whether they are noticed or not. The truth is always out there, with the potential of being understood, but usually it isn't. So far.

SB!

Interesting. That depends on your definition of reality. For instance, if mathematics provides truth to same, and those analytic proposition's are just as effective, or are they?

Here's what one has to work through:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. And finally, analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction) as the nature of Math.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).

Yes, but the Absolute is nice to think of and also credible. At least one philosopher claims the Absolute is good, and I am still thinking about that as a good Absolute is devoutly to be wished.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 9:19 am moment of enlightenment.

Look into the elementary firmons and bosom Energy.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 9:27 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 9:02 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 12:39 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 4:03 pm

3017, the ontological argument makes no sense at this stage. The only evidence found so far is for the "turtles" to stop at the universe. You might as well say that a giant rubber duck preceded the BB. Try to prove it's not true.

There is no evidence at all suggesting that God is an objective phenomenon. There's much anecdotal evidence, however, that God is a subjective phenomenon, so I don't see why theists have to keep trying to give God extra functions. Given that our entire existence is ultimately subjective, one would think that having God reside within is enough, without the unfounded extrapolations.

SB!

Thanks for your thoughts there. What do you mean that it makes no sense? You know, it (the ontological/cosmological argument) is based upon mathematical truths (a priori analytical analysis) about a universal accepted concept of God? I don't mean to sound so 'succinct', but that's the jist of the argument, or at least that's what is behind the logic of it. In other words, its conclusion is like mathematic's.

Too, I'm also thinking the rubber duck analogy would not be the appropriate analogy. That's because the concept of a 'rubber duck' does not include consciousness and the like. Maybe you mean to say 'super-human' or an 'absurd-human' or an 'illogical-human' or even 'finite human' but am not sure... .

Anyway, I can certainly appreciate your notion of subjectivity/objectivity because I've enjoyed studying that at great length-awhile back. Thank you. First, are you suggesting objective truths, like mathematical truths that describe the universe, are irrelevant to this analogy? Too, if mathematical truths are metaphysically abstract by their nature, are we faced with yet another paradox relative to figuring out objectivity associated with physical existence with life in it? In other words, isn't causation itself, logical?

Assuming the answers are no and yes/yes respectfully, should we conclude (I know this is a big leap from just one simple analogy) that all is Subjectivity? (But that might suggest 'Subjective Idealism', which would not square with, say, an Atheist's belief system... .)

Being a big fan of SK, of course I embrace the notion of subjective truths, but if there are no objective truths, what are the implications?

Just as I'm sure you're aware, there are all sorts of contradictions within those simple questions, but because perceiving 'reality' is such a perplexing subject (the nature of), I suppose parsing the differences between Subjectivity/Objectivity is as good a place as any, to start.

To me Aselm was just one more person making guesses based on not much information. The idea that God must be real because we cannot conceive of anything greater is not logical. You might as well say God must be real because we cannot envisage anything more slippery or spiky. No eel or slug could ever be as slippery as God! No porcupine's spikes can compare with the almighty spikiness of God's peerless spines :)

It is simply imagination. Pure math demonstrates that coherent and consistent mathematical models can be determined that lack any physical correlates, unlike the models of physics. The issue to me, then, is not that objects of imagination are only real to the individual doing the imagining, rather that imagination is underestimated for its own sake. That is, imagination need not have physical equivalences to be potent. In that, I probably accord somewhat with you and Kierkegaard.

However, I think that objective truths do exist, that the existence of stars, planets and moons and other entities that preceded life are objectively true, whether they are noticed or not. The truth is always out there, with the potential of being understood, but usually it isn't. So far.

SB!

Interesting. That depends on your definition of reality. For instance, if mathematics provides truth to same, and those analytic proposition's are just as effective, or are they?

Here's what one has to work through:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. And finally, analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction) as the nature of Math.

My point, not made very clearly, alas, was that we can imagine things with solid internal logic that are not in fact real - be it gods and other beings or pure mathematical models. That points, not to the power of math, but the power of imagination. That is, the field of imaginable things is greater than the field of possible things.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 12:57 pm Which version of God or gods does the atheist not believe in?
Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing God and Nature are the same. Sometimes someone is called "atheist" for believing there is an absolute aspect of being but does not believe that the Absolute intervenes in history.

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 1:14 pm

Hi Belinda!

Awesome question. Hopefully someone will chime-in here shortly... .

Thanks for asking!

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

‘God’ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Ne’er to kill again by water His kin;
Jesus gave Original Sin’s Redemption.

versus

‘God’ is unchanging, as ever Perfect,
Knowing, and Being all with no defect,
As in all at once and everywhere,
His Self mirrored in us as a Reflect.

but either way

Reflections of ‘God’ we would have to be,
As the very thoughts imagined in He—
Naught else could exist independently;
This One Effect runs continuously.

But really how it turned out…

Myth-Takes of Unconditional Love
And the freedom to be from the Above
And Goodness didn’t fill human natura—
Our follies broadcast His soap opera.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:14 pm

The answers are numerous and complex. Since there are more than 2000 gods, even devout followers of religion don't believe in >99% of gods. Not much of a difference between >99 and 100. Some theists avoid the illogic of Iron age religious dogma by subscribing to vague Creative entities divorced from religion. Of course this is much more prevalent in a philosophical environment where religious dogma is easily laid bare for the cultural mythology that it is. Many of these Creative forces don't intervene in the lives of humans, as you allude to, but that dodge transforms such a "god" into a Black Box whose sole function is to get the universe rolling but then successfully avoid detection therefore becoming real yet irrelevant (by definition).

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 11:27 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 12:27 pm

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

But there are over 2000 gods. Greek gods (Thanatos) were outsmarted by humans (Sisyphus). So one can easily imagine a god that isn't so hot, or wet, or spikey, or smart.

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 2:40 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 11:27 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 10:55 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 6:44 pm

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

But there are over 2000 gods. Greek gods (Thanatos) were outsmarted by humans (Sisyphus). So one can easily imagine a god that isn't so hot, or wet, or spikey, or smart.

Fair point. Pascal figured that God wouldn't be able to see through feigned belief.

Sy Borg wrote:The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

I think the main problem with the ontological argument (aside from the fact that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God flies in the face of what religious faith is for) is that it's simply a misuse of grammar. These sorts of "proofs" invariably seem to do that. The recent poster called philosopher19 did it in his topic "Pure reason dictates Existence/God is Perfect" with the words "Existence" and "exists". (He essentially stated that Existence must be omnipresent, therefore Existence is God, and "Existence exists" is self-evidently true therefore God exists. A fallacy of ambiguity, in asserting that the noun "Existence" denotes a thing and then asserting that "Existence exists" is self-evidently true simply because those two words look similar.)

The part of the ontological argument which states: "a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects. So a comparison is made between two objects with the properties "existing" and "not existing" as if we're comparing two existing objects! Since it doesn't denote that, the comparison makes no sense. It's as nonsensical as saying something like: "An object cannot do things if it doesn't exist. Verbs are 'doing words'. 'To not exist' is a verb. Therefore objects that don't exist are performing the activity 'not existing', therefore they exist."

Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 4:35 amThe part of the ontological argument which states: "a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist" misuses the verb "to exist". It takes advantage of the fact that it's used in sentences in a way that is grammatically similar to verbs which denote things that existing objects do, or to denote properties of those existing objects. So a comparison is made between two objects with the properties "existing" and "not existing" as if we're comparing two existing objects!

It reminds me of the time years ago when I was given a ******** for saying that nothingness does not exist. Oops.

Sy Borg wrote:It reminds me of the time years ago when I was given a ******** for saying that nothingness does not exist. Oops.

I can't see what the ****** is but I assume it's something like "stern rebuke". Anyway, don't get me started on nothingnessnessnessness.