Argument for the Existence of God

[stefanhendriks]

i did read parts, i try to understand but here comes my question:

the logic relies on 'definitions' we made up ourselfs. ie:

"existence is greater than non-existence."

here is where it all goes wrong already. Who sais that?

I don't think you can convert everything into formula's or logics. Simply because we humans do not 'interpet' the world as a whole. We already lack our senses on this 4D world. Like, we sometimes lose sense of time. Or sense of location (when dark), etc.

The problems already arise in 3d/4d worlds for us. I am quite sure there are more dimensions and things we do not know about. Perhaps you could describe "God" as a 'whole' , one who can see/act/etc uppon all dimensions.

A definition off God is as good as the definition of human beings.

[Acriku]

I've come across this peculiar argument, as well. Using the English language we created to prove something in reality has always been iffy to me. Insert anything in place of God and you can prove anything.

[Wolf]

What argument?

[Dante]

That existence is greater than non-existence, and so therefore God, being the greatest thing ever, has to exist. I think Descartes used it.

[ordos45]

Descartes used it after pages and pages and pages of sucking up to the Church fathers.  Reading Descartes' works through was like sludging through mud, but that's just me.  Who are we to say existence is greater than non-existence?  The Void is no better than that which has intruded upon it?

[Dante]

Precisely. Though I rather liked Descartes' earlier chapters, when he was still destroying all basis for knowledge. ;D

[TMA_1]

yeah the meditations by descartes are awesome in my book, thought it was awesome. I dont think he sucked up, I honestly think he believed what he was saying to the church. I dont think he said all that stuff just so that the church would look better for his writings. Obviously the church had to be subdued but I think that descartes himself believed in the church and the docterns, and was just trying to show the church he had no ill will.

Of course we can insert logical ideas in the place of the supernatural, and eventually I bet many things dealing with the supernatural could be explained. That doesnt take away from the miracle of it, or the act of God from it.

[Dante]

If Descartes hadn't been hamstrung by his tragic christianity then he might have been an even greater thinker than he already was. His arguments were logical and worthwhile until he tried to undo all his hard work.

[GUNWOUNDS]

but then you have atheists like C.S. Lewis who was brilliant but close-minded at first and only opened his mind and reached his full potential after becoming a christian and understanding how christian theology actually could make sense from a logical explanatory perspective.

The way he explained things in his book "Mere Christianity" was exceptional and has inspired many. I believe

[EWS]

The following argument entrusts the assumption that the babel fish exists.

"The babel fish prooves the existence of god.  The argument is as follows;  'I refuse to proove I exist' says God, 'for prrof denies faith and without faith I have nothing.''Ahh' says man, 'the babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it?  It could not have evolved by chance.  It proves you exist, so by your argument you don't. QED''Oh dear' says God,' hadn't thought of that.' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Sorted :D

[Anathema]

I haven't read any of Descartes' works, so I'll just post this:

http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=189

[Dante]

The best way to go about it, and no mistake. ;D Mac Hall so cool.

[TMA_1]

Damn right gunwounds, C.S. Lewis was a hands down genius. We must all praise the insane writing brilliance and wit of Mr. Lewis. hehe

By the way gunwounds, ever read anything by G.K. Chesterton?

I dont think that being a christian is a debilitation of rational thought. There are many many religious people in the fields of the arts and sciences. The beauty of it is the fact that they have their beliefs, and that doesnt influence how they go about working in their fields. And the same fact goes that they dont bring those beliefs into the picture.

Also Descartes lived in a different time. Not only are his ideas different from many of our ideas now, but also he was one of the first philosophers of the intellectual reformation. In fact he predates many other philosophers that he is categorized into. I think people like to take shots at him for the simple fact of his faith. In a way he is like Pascal. Pascal was a great thinker in his time, and came up with many great ideas. One of the more famous being Pascal's Wager. People always rake on him and his ideas, but I think it is because they are brilliant ideas for the cause of faith, and that has many enemies. I can tell you yourself dante dont exactly have a faith or religion, I could be wrong but that is what it seems like. Obviously the ideas that you talk about to me will seem like complete crap, and my ideas will equally look bad to you. So really I think we are just dealing with opinions that wont change and simple semantics.

[GUNWOUNDS]

EWS wrote:

"The babel fish prooves the existence of god.

[Dante]

Actually it's phrased:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn

[GUNWOUNDS]

Damn right gunwounds, C.S. Lewis was a hands down genius. We must all praise the insane writing brilliance and wit of Mr. Lewis. hehe

By the way gunwounds, ever read anything by G.K. Chesterton?

I dont think that being a christian is a debilitation of rational thought. There are many many religious people in the fields of the arts and sciences. The beauty of it is the fact that they have their beliefs, and that doesnt influence how they go about working in their fields. And the same fact goes that they dont bring those beliefs into the picture.

Also Descartes lived in a different time. Not only are his ideas different from many of our ideas now, but also he was one of the first philosophers of the intellectual reformation. In fact he predates many other philosophers that he is categorized into. I think people like to take shots at him for the simple fact of his faith. In a way he is like Pascal. Pascal was a great thinker in his time, and came up with many great ideas. One of the more famous being Pascal's Wager. People always rake on him and his ideas, but I think it is because they are brilliant ideas for the cause of faith, and that has many enemies. I can tell you yourself dante dont exactly have a faith or religion, I could be wrong but that is what it seems like. Obviously the ideas that you talk about to me will seem like complete crap, and my ideas will equally look bad to you. So really I think we are just dealing with opinions that wont change and simple semantics.

Well TMA it depends... not all athesits are unconvertable... i mean C.S. Lewis was a staunch intellectual atheist.. but he converted to christianity depsite that.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Actually it's phrased:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn

[Dante]

With the absence of first hand proof, and the logical arguments against the existence of a god - which I shall not go into now because I just hate talking to you - I am satisfied that god does not exist. Your opinion does not matter to me, in the same way that I highly suspect my opinion means nothing to you.

I believe if an atheist really keeps searching for the truth they will finally get it.

Anyone searching for the truth will find one of their own. Reality is subjective like that.

The people who YOU are describing TMA are atheists who want to stay in their comfort zone regardless of what is right or wrong or false or true.

I should point out that it is not just some atheists who go about their lives like that.

[Caid Ivik]

This whole argument is pointless, because as God is the label of primal essence, it is no need to prove its reality no more. Even if we were a nonsubstantial universe, you need a primum mobile, what is the same. Primal substance must have a primal energy in itself, otherwise the time would be impossible to create... Leave faith for religious problems, not basics of metaphysic.

[GUNWOUNDS]

With the absence of first hand proof, and the logical arguments against the existence of a god

Thats what the whole deal with Pharoah was about.

[Wolf]

I agree with Caid that there is no need to prove or disprove the existence of God, but for different reasons. I feel that belief in God is just as justifed as disbelief in God. Further, to claim that one group of individuals is "intellectually greater" or "has more potential for greatness" just because they are Christian or atheist is amongst some of the greatest folly I have ever heard. The argument that atheism somehow equates with knowledge and therefore should be granted intellectual superiority over religion is, in short, arrogant bullshit. Atheism is just as justified as any other religious belief, for God & other religious matters are defined as metaphysical and may or may-not exist. We cannot test or experiment with the metaphysical realm. There is no way of knowing for sure, it's more or less a 50-50 gamble, which is a lot better than your average game of Russian roulette. I've also heard the "burden of proof" argument, that it rests on the shoulders of religious believers, but why so? Disproving God is, in and of itself, establishing a sort of proof over that which is defined as metaphysical -- not of this universe.

[TMA_1]

Well it isnt silly to try and prove the existance of God, I just think it is somewhat impossible to prove it. As a philisophical notion, I think that it is all built on faith. Like Hagel and his idea of the "leap of faith", I think that sometimes you cant get all the evidance you would ever need, that it is one of those things in life that you can only get enough evidence to partially see the truth, and then you have to take a leap of faith. So really you cannot rationalize the existance of God until God manifests himself to humanity.

[Wolf]

The leap of faith idea belongs to Kierkegaard, an existentialist Christian.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well wolf what about all the people who witnessed the power of Elijah, Jesus, and Moses?

[ordos45]

I think the problem is that people have witnessed the power of God  ... however humanity is never satisfied and eventually doubts itself and thinks itself in its generation is superior and that the old generation was ancient and outmoded.

Ditto.  Sometimes its easier to deny what one has seen than to humble oneself.