Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of GOD
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5311 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 301 of 312 (458463)
02-29-2008 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-28-2008 11:21 PM


Given that the thread is due to be wound up very shortly, I am not going to respond to your latest replies. I think it’s also a good time to agree to disagree about pretty much everything you’ve proposed on the thread, which is frequently the nature of the beast around here.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
I have a lot of things to think about, which was the whole point of the exercise.
I’m glad you've taken something out of the exchanges you have had with everyone on this thread. Formulating ideas in your head is one thing, but the model of reality we hold inside our head is invariably subjective. We can start to develop a much more balanced view of reality if we allow ourselves to listen to the perspective of others, who will have formulated different models of reality, based on their own experiences of that reality, which will certainly be different to our own.
Edited by dogrelata, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-28-2008 11:21 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied

reiverix
Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 302 of 312 (458481)
02-29-2008 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-28-2008 11:21 PM


Groan
I hope your 'mathematician brother' isn't nodding in agreement at your garbage. Let me know when you get past 2nd grade math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-28-2008 11:21 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 303 of 312 (458503)
02-29-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-28-2008 11:21 PM


God exists in our minds (a conclusion)
The reason it's a problem for you as you now admit is because you have defined reality is existence, and existence is reality, which is of course a meaningless circular argument. Unless we expand on what these words actually mean.
The Dictionary defines reality as;
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. something that is real.
5. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
6. The quality or state of being actual or true.
7. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual.
8. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
9. That which exists objectively and in fact.
That is how I am defining reality - there is no insistence of reality being "something that physically exists" in there at all.
well all the data is on this thread
And herein lies your problem. You have given us nothing but imaginary data. Data that you have thought about, but nothing you have recorded from the real world.
Things that are non physical or without material form or substance, but still having some form of "existence", like possibilities, concepts, prospects, potentials, thoughts, imagination, dreams, abstracts, and numbers even (numbers seem to be both physical and metaphysical), Things like that.
They have material and physical form and substance. They exist within our brains as neural states. But I will concede the point - God exists in your imagination.
God can indeed create physical existence, which is what reality actually is.
But god cannot create reality, which is all that exists (physical or otherwise). If God could create reality - that would mean God was not part of reality. Which would mean that God doesn't actually really exist. If God doesn't exist, he cannot create reality.
This inherent contradiction proves that God cannot create reality.
There are only ever two actual possible answers to the question "Is there a God"? YES and NO!
Not true - we don't know what the possible answers are to this question. At most there are two, YES and NO. But if it is impossible for God not to exist then there is only one answer: YES! If it is impossible for God to exist then there is only one answer: NO!
Since we don't know if it is impossible or possible, the rest is just idle speculation
To conclude:
God possibly exists or God possibly doesn't exist. You don't know what the actual answers are to 'Can the god you have defined possibly exist?' So you have an imaginary god that exists in your mind, but that god is powerless to affect reality. Even if, in your imagination, this god can affect reality - that doesn't mean it actually can.
We have no way of knowing what the most powerful being that could exist in reality is. We have no way of knowing what the most powerful being that does exist in reality is. Therefore 'God' may or may not exist and your tour of your imagination has not got us any closer to an answer.
To put this into perspective, billions of people have thought about this question, in one fashion or another, over thousands of years. Millions upon millions of them have considered the god you describe. Some of them were much smarter, more highly educated and had a lot more time on their hands to ponder these questions than anybody that posts on this board - including you.
If you think that you have managed to outsmart them all using the argument ad imagination - you might want to consider the hubris that shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-28-2008 11:21 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 304 of 312 (458517)
02-29-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
02-04-2008 10:59 AM


Re: GOD Defined
Stile writes:
GOD = THE BEING EVERYONE THINKS IS AN ULTIMATE BEING...
Surely not everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-04-2008 10:59 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Rahvin, posted 02-29-2008 2:28 PM lyx2no has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 305 of 312 (458518)
02-29-2008 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by lyx2no
02-29-2008 2:22 PM


Re: GOD Defined
Surely not everyone.
What he says must be true. CAPS LOCK MAKES ANY ARGUMENT WIN!
/sarcasm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by lyx2no, posted 02-29-2008 2:22 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Stile, posted 02-29-2008 2:44 PM Rahvin has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 306 of 312 (458521)
02-29-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Rahvin
02-29-2008 2:28 PM


Re: GOD Defined
No fair!
I only used the caps to copy the style of the guy I was replying to... And I agree, most likely not "everyone". My point wasn't meant to be taken to that literal degree.
Wait, all caps means I win?
Awesome.
That pretty much sums up my thoughts of this thread too. "Awesome". Yes, we're quite capable of thinking of an 'ultimate being/thing', and it would be better if this being/thing did actually exist. Cool. It may actually be really cool if our thoughts had any bearing whatsoever on what actually does exist.
Bottom line is observations of the real world come first. No one thought up a four legged furry animal, and then 'poof' dogs appeared. It works the other way, we observe a four legged furry animal, and we give it a name.
God will never exist from humans defining Him into existance.
God exists. Or God does not exist.
The actuality will not be known until we have observations of the real world.
The probabilities of these options will not be known until we have observations of the real world.
Without observations of the real world, we may use faith to believe in God. Faith also does not force God into existance. But if God does exist, faith may be our only possible connection to Him.
Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Rahvin, posted 02-29-2008 2:28 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by lyx2no, posted 02-29-2008 3:09 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 308 by Rahvin, posted 02-29-2008 3:14 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 307 of 312 (458526)
02-29-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Stile
02-29-2008 2:44 PM


Re: GOD Defined
I haven't yet had time to read this entire, awesome thread yet, and apologize for the premature, immature objection, and promise future immature comments will be timely.
But the rest is what I was going to say ” verbatim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Stile, posted 02-29-2008 2:44 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 308 of 312 (458527)
02-29-2008 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Stile
02-29-2008 2:44 PM


Re: GOD Defined
No fair!
I only used the caps to copy the style of the guy I was replying to...
Which is really who I was mocking, not you.
God will never exist from humans defining Him into existance.
God exists. Or God does not exist.
The actuality will not be known until we have observations of the real world.
The probabilities of these options will not be known until we have observations of the real world.
Without observations of the real world, we may use faith to believe in God. Faith also does not force God into existance. But if God does exist, faith may be our only possible connection to Him.
I agree completely. And for some, faith without evidence is good enough. For others, we need some kind of objective evidence to at least hint at the existence of a deity.
Defining "god" is just plain silly without anything objective to base the definition on. You may as well define "god" as "invisible fairies," and conclude he doesn't exist. Unless your definition is correct, it's meaningless. And without anything objective to base the definition on, there's no way to ensure the definition is accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Stile, posted 02-29-2008 2:44 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 312 (458528)
02-29-2008 3:17 PM


Summary: Pure logic is meaningless without empirical testing.
Since we are past the 300 post mark, I will post my summary. I will make no new points here (not that I ever did -- I was essentially making the same points over and over), nor will I directly respond to anyone else's post.
My post is very simple. rulerofthisuniverse attempted to construct a purely logical argument for the existence of God. I'll leave it to others to explain how he failed in this attempt. The point I have been trying to make is that purely logical arguments give us no new knowledge about the real world. That is because the conclusions of the argument depend on the truth of the premises, and we can never be certain that the set of premises that we are using are a completely accurate description of the world. Anyone can construct an argument that can demonstrate any conclusion that one desires. All that is needed is to select the right set of premises that will lead to that conclusion. Someone who is sufficiently clever (or who has been hoodwinked by someone who is sufficiently clever) can choose a set of premises that are false but not obviously so.
So the premises must be checked against reality. But this is not the way that science tests our knowledge. If one is to try to demonstrate that God exists (or does not exist), then the statement "God exists" or "God does not exist" must be taken as one of the premises. It is not a conclusion, it is accepted a priori as part of the initial theoretical framework. Then the conclusion is produced, and it is this conclusion that is tested against empirical observation. If the conclusion is not observed, then one or more of the premises must be false, which might be "God exists" (or "God does not exist") if the other premises appear too reasonable to discard. If the conclusion is observed, then the theoretical framework, the premises, including "God exists" is tentatively confirmed pending further testing. This is a scientific test of whether or not God exists.
To conclude that God exists (in an allegedly "scientific" study") is to imply that one can, and will, test the existence of God directly, and the existence or non-existence of God (as empirically determined) will then be used to judge the validity of the rest of the theoretical framework from which this conclusion came.
But I suspect that if the, um, "logician" felt that the existence and non-existence of God could be determined empirically, then there would have been no need for such an argument from logic to begin with. The "logician" wants to prove that God exists, an endeavor that could be successful (in the logical meaning of proof), but that will still not necessarily tell us anything about whether God exists in fact in the real world.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 310 of 312 (458542)
02-29-2008 6:14 PM


Can I get your autograph?
I’m up to post 60. I’ve been told several times there is big news to come. Why do I get the feeling that the big news is that existence would make the UPB/T more perfect and must therefore be reality?
Hey RoTU, is your real name René?
No, no, don't tell me. I want to be surprised.
Update:
Sorry, RoTU, but your thesis is not original; though, possibly a new application. That there are only two side to a question, yes/no, does not imply that there are two sides to the coin. You'll need to substitute it for a die with infinite sides. And there is no guarantee that any of the sides say yes. Not that I figured this out for myself. My brother clued me in in 1968.
BTW: You rejected God's definition of Himself: Ehyeh ” I AM.
(I'm sorry I didn't get in on this earlier.)
Edited by lyx2no, : Update.
Edited by lyx2no, : BTW.

Kindly

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 311 of 312 (459094)
03-03-2008 7:54 PM


What happened to this 300 post limit?
I came back here and expected this thread to be closed.
But at least it enables me to make some final comments.
It is clear that no one has been able to disprove any of the arguments contained in my thesis, even though it needs expanding and futher explanations and proofs given as many people have simply misunderstood many of the concepts.
Unfortunatly some critics have disagreed simply for the sake of disagreeing, some have delibrately used staw man arguments, and many times taken quotes totally out of context. Not only that but some critics have sometimes totally changed the wording of the thesis to suit their own purpose. Also other critics have used ill defined words and sometimes twisted the meaning of a word to suit their own purpose, and then they blantently deny that fact even when I show the real definitions from the dictionary. The final problem with the critics is that most were using illogical arguments, and sometimes arguments that were totally irrelevent.
The final conclusion despite all the criticism is that no one has been able to disprove the theory that GOD, possibility and existence are irreducibly dependent.
This thread has however helped me understand in what areas I need to improve the thesis, and no doubt that this will end up as a book.
Thankyou all for taking part in my little experiment.

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 312 of 312 (459169)
03-04-2008 1:32 PM


And on that note
We close.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024