Argument for God from Platonism

[DanielR]

I kind of believed in the theory of forms until I read Nietzsche

 

[1137]

This is the mother of all non sequiturs. Even if we grant the first threee premises.

If everything that exists has a form, that does not entail that everything that has a form (in its definition or not) exists.

Ciao

- viole

Did I say otherwise?

 

[viole]

Did I say otherwise?

Nope. As far as I can read. Why do you ask?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. All things that exist must have a Form.
2. Consciousness exists.
3. So, there must be a Form of consciousness.
4. A transcendent, causal, eternal force that contains consciousness, self-awareness, and intent is the most basic definition of God.
5. Therefore, a God of this definition must exist.

I already know from experience that premise one is by far the most confusing and misunderstood step, so it will probably be the main focus of this writing. The basic idea behind Plato’s Theory of Forms is that there are two worlds: the physical world perceived empirically, and the ideal world perceived intellectually. This should not be thought of like substance dualism, as Forms are not substance, they are essence. If we take a shape, such as a pentagram, there are theoretically unlimited ways we could draw it. Different sizes, poorly measured lines, wrong angles, different colors, make it out of different material, etc and so on. Yet no matter what the differences, we can still recognize it as the shape of a pentagram, a five-pointed star formed by a continuous, five segmented line. Same with triangles as three sided, three pointed shapes. One of the main arguments for Forms is based on mathematics and geometry like this. Imagine if we tried to make every triangle absolutely perfect, it would take years to get even the simplest project finished. Yet we treat all the measurements as absolutely perfect, and it works.

Forms go far beyond geometry though, according to the theory there has to be a Form for everything. This is because like geometrical shapes, all other things are a collection of defining properties/characteristics. The most fundamental Forms (at least one of them) would be the Form of order. No matter what field of study, what one tells themselves, or what new information we learn, it is always underlined by order. Even if we found a way to explain the universe in three equations, there would still be something more basic to them: order. Without order the universe as we know it could not exist, there could be no physical or logical laws. Despite beauty being perceived objectively, we can still understand what beauty is, no matter how different our subjective preferences are from one another (just like the millions of different pentagrams and triangles we can create).

The common question is why this theory should be accepted, and it is for the simple reason that it seems to be sound. Let’s look at the central argument.

1. The more objective a concept is, the more real the thing it represents.
2. The Forms are more objective than material objects.
3. Therefore, the Forms are more real than material objects.

In defense of this first sub-premise, it can be pointed out that the “objectivity” of something is precisely what we use to determine reality from appearance. The less straddled in subjective interpretation, the more objective it is, and the safer it is to call it truth.

Sub-premise two is the big one. Several problems are presented with using the physical world for objectivity. First, we only contact physical reality through subjective images. There is nothing about it that does not receive individual interpretation. Take geometry again (the simplest example). We can draw two triangles that look nearly identical, then argue over which one is more “perfect”. In the end if it has three points and three sides, they are both correct. This takes away from the subjectivity and helps us understand the nature of triangles. Second, things in the physical world contain many different, mixed properties. If we try to discuss these things as a whole, without separating out and addressing the individual properties, we cannot truly explain what the thing in itself is. Third, things in the physical world are in a constant state of change.

On the other hand, the world of Forms can provide us with more objective information. First, Forms are more objective than our perception of an object. You cannot debate what makes what we call a triangle a triangle. A better example is the modern, on-going debates on whether gods exist and have influence over the universe or not. Some people believe that the universe is designed, some believe it can come about just fine without a deity, and both sides miss the underlying point of it all: the Form of order exists, period. Likewise with emotions, different things can cause us pain, which we can even experience differently. Yet we understand pain in general, the Form of it, despite these theoretically infinite different manifestations of pain. Second, Forms explain why an object is the way it is, because it breaks it down to all the individual properties, which gives a more full picture. A triangle is not just any shape, it contains very specific properties from as specific as the number of points to as fundamental as relying on order. Third, Forms are unchanging.

If this is the case, Forms are indeed more objective than the material world and our experience of it. It’s also more practical as illustrated by the mathematical argument for Forms. Further, there are many fundamental questions it answers. For example: how is knowledge possible, how is it distinguished from belief, and how can things in a constant state of change be known? It tells us what things are real, if there is a mind-independent reality, and if anything permanent underlies the changing phenomenon we experience. It even goes so far as to help understand what general terms stand for, and what it is when “get” or “grasp” when we understand something.

Like a good philosopher, let’s look at the main critiques of the theory I have seen. First is the concern of “what are there Forms for?” For some reason it is thought that the Platonist will reject a Form of things like dirt or dampness. This is simply not the case, if something exists there is a Form for it. Second is the objections that Forms do seem to be changing and divisible. For example there are not just triangles, but also isosceles, scalene, and equilateral triangles. How can there be a Form of triangles when to be both isosceles and scalene are contradictory properties? Again it comes down to a misunderstanding. The Theory of Forms is simply hierarchal, the sub-Forms simply exist as lower manifestations of the main Form. Just because there can be varying characteristic of X does not mean X does not share any more basic characteristic. Finally there is the Third Man Argument, which says that there is an infinite regress of Forms. For example, if there is a Form of Largeness then all large things are smaller than largeness, meaning there needs to be a second Form of Largeness to contain both. There then needs to be another to contain all three, then another and so one. Once again it comes down to misunderstanding the Theory of Forms. It’s hierarchal, all “large” things simply partake in the Form of Largeness. There is no greater Form, and there is no need to be a greater Form.

So yes, taking ALL that into account I accept the theory of Forms. The second premise is that consciousness exists, which is something every self-conscious is inherently, axiomatically aware of. While we may not be able to truly prove the consciousness of others, it’s accepted that solipsism is generally impractical in these types of discussions. Besides this, we are aware of our OWN consciousness at the very least, which proves premise 2 is also true.

Premise 3 is simply a combination of the first two. If there is a Form of everything, and consciousness exists, it logically follows that a Form of consciousness exists.

Premise 4 discusses the nature of the Form of consciousness. Like all Forms it is transcendent, objective, pure, isolate, etc and so on. But it also contains all those characteristics that make things conscious. Just by our own self-awareness we can understand that this Form would include things like self-awareness, abstract thought, fantasy, preference, biases, …, things that we ourselves experience. Something relatable to humans like that, greater or not, is a main attribute of basically every god in history. Same with being transcendent, objective, and unending, separated from but related to and impacting the physical world. All of these things that would be inherent in a Form of consciousness, which we’ve shown must exist, fit the vast majority of definitions of God. This leads to the conclusion that God, in this very common, simple, traditional definition, must exist. Note that it need not be omni-anything, nor even be evidence of some sort of creator deity. But whatever it is, the logic suggests it exists.

Shorter version: reification, therefore God.

 

[1137]

Shorter version: reification, therefore God.

Straw man - Wikipedia

 

[nasheayahu]

After all these centuries you still protecting this Nephilim idiot's con-game using Yashra'al Writings written from Yah'uah to His people of the House of Ya'aqob! Using the Christians who are born from the loins of the Catholic Religion of the Roman Empire who is whoring His Writings for money!


Isa 65:11 The Scriptures 1998+ (11) “But you are those who forsake יהוה, who forget My set-apart mountain, who prepare a table for Gad (Pronounced in English as God), and who fill a drink offering for Meni.

The brother of Zeus, Ra, Odin, Semyaza, Azazel and all the rest of the Outlaws of The Kingdom of Shamayim!

 

[miodrag]

1. All things that exist must have a Form.
2. Consciousness exists.

I stopped reading after this, so bear with me...

This Form is in fact the modus operandi of consciousness. Form or Idea is a concept. So this "proof" seems like a circular reasoning to me. Which proves nothing. Rephrased:

"1.There is a concept for everything that exists
2. consciousness exists
3. since we can conceive "X" and that concept exists, it must be that
4. "X" is real."

Besides, this only applies to an observing or active consciousness. Meaning it applies to a consciousness which is aware of at least some thing that exists. Since: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu + Nisi intellectus ipse." then either consciousness must have senses to observe or it observes it's own ideas. Problem is that this "proof" does not anticipate that consciousness can be dormant. Which is a Vedic concept; good thing that someone mentioned Brahman, which is a formless, impersonal consciousness, but a better Vedic example in this case would be a teaching about modes of consciousness: samadhi, awake, sleeping with dreams and dreamless sleeping. In this last case, consciousness is latent. It exists, but is not aware, not active. So, not only that concepts or ideas go automatically with awareness, meaning that the suggested proof in fact states only that active consciousness and ideas go hand in hand and cannot prove one another (when you turn on the light, you will see photons and that is the proof that photons exist) but it also completely neglects the case when consciousness is not active. Not to mention the invisible pink unicorn - it is a paradoxical Form in my consciousness, yet I am certain that it does not exist. There is no definition of God, only conventions... etc.

 

[Milton Platt]

1. All things that exist must have a Form.
2. Consciousness exists.
3. So, there must be a Form of consciousness.
4. A transcendent, causal, eternal force that contains consciousness, self-awareness, and intent is the most basic definition of God.
5. Therefore, a God of this definition must exist.

I already know from experience that premise one is by far the most confusing and misunderstood step, so it will probably be the main focus of this writing. The basic idea behind Plato’s Theory of Forms is that there are two worlds: the physical world perceived empirically, and the ideal world perceived intellectually. This should not be thought of like substance dualism, as Forms are not substance, they are essence. If we take a shape, such as a pentagram, there are theoretically unlimited ways we could draw it. Different sizes, poorly measured lines, wrong angles, different colors, make it out of different material, etc and so on. Yet no matter what the differences, we can still recognize it as the shape of a pentagram, a five-pointed star formed by a continuous, five segmented line. Same with triangles as three sided, three pointed shapes. One of the main arguments for Forms is based on mathematics and geometry like this. Imagine if we tried to make every triangle absolutely perfect, it would take years to get even the simplest project finished. Yet we treat all the measurements as absolutely perfect, and it works.

Forms go far beyond geometry though, according to the theory there has to be a Form for everything. This is because like geometrical shapes, all other things are a collection of defining properties/characteristics. The most fundamental Forms (at least one of them) would be the Form of order. No matter what field of study, what one tells themselves, or what new information we learn, it is always underlined by order. Even if we found a way to explain the universe in three equations, there would still be something more basic to them: order. Without order the universe as we know it could not exist, there could be no physical or logical laws. Despite beauty being perceived objectively, we can still understand what beauty is, no matter how different our subjective preferences are from one another (just like the millions of different pentagrams and triangles we can create).

The common question is why this theory should be accepted, and it is for the simple reason that it seems to be sound. Let’s look at the central argument.

1. The more objective a concept is, the more real the thing it represents.
2. The Forms are more objective than material objects.
3. Therefore, the Forms are more real than material objects.

In defense of this first sub-premise, it can be pointed out that the “objectivity” of something is precisely what we use to determine reality from appearance. The less straddled in subjective interpretation, the more objective it is, and the safer it is to call it truth.

Sub-premise two is the big one. Several problems are presented with using the physical world for objectivity. First, we only contact physical reality through subjective images. There is nothing about it that does not receive individual interpretation. Take geometry again (the simplest example). We can draw two triangles that look nearly identical, then argue over which one is more “perfect”. In the end if it has three points and three sides, they are both correct. This takes away from the subjectivity and helps us understand the nature of triangles. Second, things in the physical world contain many different, mixed properties. If we try to discuss these things as a whole, without separating out and addressing the individual properties, we cannot truly explain what the thing in itself is. Third, things in the physical world are in a constant state of change.

On the other hand, the world of Forms can provide us with more objective information. First, Forms are more objective than our perception of an object. You cannot debate what makes what we call a triangle a triangle. A better example is the modern, on-going debates on whether gods exist and have influence over the universe or not. Some people believe that the universe is designed, some believe it can come about just fine without a deity, and both sides miss the underlying point of it all: the Form of order exists, period. Likewise with emotions, different things can cause us pain, which we can even experience differently. Yet we understand pain in general, the Form of it, despite these theoretically infinite different manifestations of pain. Second, Forms explain why an object is the way it is, because it breaks it down to all the individual properties, which gives a more full picture. A triangle is not just any shape, it contains very specific properties from as specific as the number of points to as fundamental as relying on order. Third, Forms are unchanging.

If this is the case, Forms are indeed more objective than the material world and our experience of it. It’s also more practical as illustrated by the mathematical argument for Forms. Further, there are many fundamental questions it answers. For example: how is knowledge possible, how is it distinguished from belief, and how can things in a constant state of change be known? It tells us what things are real, if there is a mind-independent reality, and if anything permanent underlies the changing phenomenon we experience. It even goes so far as to help understand what general terms stand for, and what it is when “get” or “grasp” when we understand something.

Like a good philosopher, let’s look at the main critiques of the theory I have seen. First is the concern of “what are there Forms for?” For some reason it is thought that the Platonist will reject a Form of things like dirt or dampness. This is simply not the case, if something exists there is a Form for it. Second is the objections that Forms do seem to be changing and divisible. For example there are not just triangles, but also isosceles, scalene, and equilateral triangles. How can there be a Form of triangles when to be both isosceles and scalene are contradictory properties? Again it comes down to a misunderstanding. The Theory of Forms is simply hierarchal, the sub-Forms simply exist as lower manifestations of the main Form. Just because there can be varying characteristic of X does not mean X does not share any more basic characteristic. Finally there is the Third Man Argument, which says that there is an infinite regress of Forms. For example, if there is a Form of Largeness then all large things are smaller than largeness, meaning there needs to be a second Form of Largeness to contain both. There then needs to be another to contain all three, then another and so one. Once again it comes down to misunderstanding the Theory of Forms. It’s hierarchal, all “large” things simply partake in the Form of Largeness. There is no greater Form, and there is no need to be a greater Form.

So yes, taking ALL that into account I accept the theory of Forms. The second premise is that consciousness exists, which is something every self-conscious is inherently, axiomatically aware of. While we may not be able to truly prove the consciousness of others, it’s accepted that solipsism is generally impractical in these types of discussions. Besides this, we are aware of our OWN consciousness at the very least, which proves premise 2 is also true.

Premise 3 is simply a combination of the first two. If there is a Form of everything, and consciousness exists, it logically follows that a Form of consciousness exists.

Premise 4 discusses the nature of the Form of consciousness. Like all Forms it is transcendent, objective, pure, isolate, etc and so on. But it also contains all those characteristics that make things conscious. Just by our own self-awareness we can understand that this Form would include things like self-awareness, abstract thought, fantasy, preference, biases, …, things that we ourselves experience. Something relatable to humans like that, greater or not, is a main attribute of basically every god in history. Same with being transcendent, objective, and unending, separated from but related to and impacting the physical world. All of these things that would be inherent in a Form of consciousness, which we’ve shown must exist, fit the vast majority of definitions of God. This leads to the conclusion that God, in this very common, simple, traditional definition, must exist. Note that it need not be omni-anything, nor even be evidence of some sort of creator deity. But whatever it is, the logic suggests it exists.

I reject premise 4 and 5

 

[1137]

I reject premise 4 and 5

How come?

 

[Blastcat]

1. All things that exist must have a Form.
2. Consciousness exists.
3. So, there must be a Form of consciousness.
4. A transcendent, causal, eternal force that contains consciousness, self-awareness, and intent is the most basic definition of God.
5. Therefore, a God of this definition must exist.

How did we get from 3 to 4?

 

[psychoslice]

Sure, but you came into MY thread and used your own terminology rather than mine.



This was what the majority of the op is for...

So its only your way ?.

 

[1137]

So its only your way ?.

When you're talking about something entirely irrelevant to op and argument because you're addressing the wrong definition, yes.

 

[psychoslice]

When you're talking about something entirely irrelevant to op and argument because you're addressing the wrong definition, yes.

Well that your problem.

 

[David T]

1. All things that exist must have a Form.
2. Consciousness exists.
3. So, there must be a Form of consciousness.
4. A transcendent, causal, eternal force that contains consciousness, self-awareness, and intent is the most basic definition of God.
5. Therefore, a God of this definition must exist.

I already know from experience that premise one is by far the most confusing and misunderstood step, so it will probably be the main focus of this writing. The basic idea behind Plato’s Theory of Forms is that there are two worlds: the physical world perceived empirically, and the ideal world perceived intellectually. This should not be thought of like substance dualism, as Forms are not substance, they are essence. If we take a shape, such as a pentagram, there are theoretically unlimited ways we could draw it. Different sizes, poorly measured lines, wrong angles, different colors, make it out of different material, etc and so on. Yet no matter what the differences, we can still recognize it as the shape of a pentagram, a five-pointed star formed by a continuous, five segmented line. Same with triangles as three sided, three pointed shapes. One of the main arguments for Forms is based on mathematics and geometry like this. Imagine if we tried to make every triangle absolutely perfect, it would take years to get even the simplest project finished. Yet we treat all the measurements as absolutely perfect, and it works.

Forms go far beyond geometry though, according to the theory there has to be a Form for everything. This is because like geometrical shapes, all other things are a collection of defining properties/characteristics. The most fundamental Forms (at least one of them) would be the Form of order. No matter what field of study, what one tells themselves, or what new information we learn, it is always underlined by order. Even if we found a way to explain the universe in three equations, there would still be something more basic to them: order. Without order the universe as we know it could not exist, there could be no physical or logical laws. Despite beauty being perceived objectively, we can still understand what beauty is, no matter how different our subjective preferences are from one another (just like the millions of different pentagrams and triangles we can create).

The common question is why this theory should be accepted, and it is for the simple reason that it seems to be sound. Let’s look at the central argument.

1. The more objective a concept is, the more real the thing it represents.
2. The Forms are more objective than material objects.
3. Therefore, the Forms are more real than material objects.

In defense of this first sub-premise, it can be pointed out that the “objectivity” of something is precisely what we use to determine reality from appearance. The less straddled in subjective interpretation, the more objective it is, and the safer it is to call it truth.

Sub-premise two is the big one. Several problems are presented with using the physical world for objectivity. First, we only contact physical reality through subjective images. There is nothing about it that does not receive individual interpretation. Take geometry again (the simplest example). We can draw two triangles that look nearly identical, then argue over which one is more “perfect”. In the end if it has three points and three sides, they are both correct. This takes away from the subjectivity and helps us understand the nature of triangles. Second, things in the physical world contain many different, mixed properties. If we try to discuss these things as a whole, without separating out and addressing the individual properties, we cannot truly explain what the thing in itself is. Third, things in the physical world are in a constant state of change.

On the other hand, the world of Forms can provide us with more objective information. First, Forms are more objective than our perception of an object. You cannot debate what makes what we call a triangle a triangle. A better example is the modern, on-going debates on whether gods exist and have influence over the universe or not. Some people believe that the universe is designed, some believe it can come about just fine without a deity, and both sides miss the underlying point of it all: the Form of order exists, period. Likewise with emotions, different things can cause us pain, which we can even experience differently. Yet we understand pain in general, the Form of it, despite these theoretically infinite different manifestations of pain. Second, Forms explain why an object is the way it is, because it breaks it down to all the individual properties, which gives a more full picture. A triangle is not just any shape, it contains very specific properties from as specific as the number of points to as fundamental as relying on order. Third, Forms are unchanging.

If this is the case, Forms are indeed more objective than the material world and our experience of it. It’s also more practical as illustrated by the mathematical argument for Forms. Further, there are many fundamental questions it answers. For example: how is knowledge possible, how is it distinguished from belief, and how can things in a constant state of change be known? It tells us what things are real, if there is a mind-independent reality, and if anything permanent underlies the changing phenomenon we experience. It even goes so far as to help understand what general terms stand for, and what it is when “get” or “grasp” when we understand something.

Like a good philosopher, let’s look at the main critiques of the theory I have seen. First is the concern of “what are there Forms for?” For some reason it is thought that the Platonist will reject a Form of things like dirt or dampness. This is simply not the case, if something exists there is a Form for it. Second is the objections that Forms do seem to be changing and divisible. For example there are not just triangles, but also isosceles, scalene, and equilateral triangles. How can there be a Form of triangles when to be both isosceles and scalene are contradictory properties? Again it comes down to a misunderstanding. The Theory of Forms is simply hierarchal, the sub-Forms simply exist as lower manifestations of the main Form. Just because there can be varying characteristic of X does not mean X does not share any more basic characteristic. Finally there is the Third Man Argument, which says that there is an infinite regress of Forms. For example, if there is a Form of Largeness then all large things are smaller than largeness, meaning there needs to be a second Form of Largeness to contain both. There then needs to be another to contain all three, then another and so one. Once again it comes down to misunderstanding the Theory of Forms. It’s hierarchal, all “large” things simply partake in the Form of Largeness. There is no greater Form, and there is no need to be a greater Form.

So yes, taking ALL that into account I accept the theory of Forms. The second premise is that consciousness exists, which is something every self-conscious is inherently, axiomatically aware of. While we may not be able to truly prove the consciousness of others, it’s accepted that solipsism is generally impractical in these types of discussions. Besides this, we are aware of our OWN consciousness at the very least, which proves premise 2 is also true.

Premise 3 is simply a combination of the first two. If there is a Form of everything, and consciousness exists, it logically follows that a Form of consciousness exists.

Premise 4 discusses the nature of the Form of consciousness. Like all Forms it is transcendent, objective, pure, isolate, etc and so on. But it also contains all those characteristics that make things conscious. Just by our own self-awareness we can understand that this Form would include things like self-awareness, abstract thought, fantasy, preference, biases, …, things that we ourselves experience. Something relatable to humans like that, greater or not, is a main attribute of basically every god in history. Same with being transcendent, objective, and unending, separated from but related to and impacting the physical world. All of these things that would be inherent in a Form of consciousness, which we’ve shown must exist, fit the vast majority of definitions of God. This leads to the conclusion that God, in this very common, simple, traditional definition, must exist. Note that it need not be omni-anything, nor even be evidence of some sort of creator deity. But whatever it is, the logic suggests it exists.

It's killing me it's so not socrates

 

[Onyx]

After reading over this many times, my initial conclusions are:

-The Form of Consciousness is required for other Forms to exist, as it is the only thing that can make ultimate sense of the primordial mess of order and chaos.

-That which can perceive all Forms would be omni-aware of abstract concepts, but not necessarily in control of the clockwork of nature, which just does it's thing.

-As humans, we are in a unique position in that we exist as a fusion of the subjective/objective realms.

-Therefore I'm inclined to think that we are the only "Gods" that matter right now. We are the metaphysical vehicles through which consciousness can actually control the universe, which is why we should exercise caution in our worldly pursuits.

Excellent work as always, @1137.