God cannot be defined into existence.

[F1fan]

In the start I say: God can be 3 things, idea only, idea + existence in reality, exist in reality and only seen to exist.

Well #3 is wrong since by your using the word "god" you have an idea. whether any God exists or not. So that leaves 1 and 2.

I'm showing by what we observe about "God", that it's no an idea nor idea + existence, but rather only seen to exist. The reason is due to due to his magnitude in terms of existence.

This makes no sense as I just noted. You, and other theists, use words and other symbols that represent the idea.

An example would be people seeing leaves fall to the ground from trees but not have any knowledge about gravity. They would just observe the effects of gravity, but no idea about it, nor any word. But that's not the case. The many thousands of ideas of gods are very old, and inconsistent. So it's evidence the idea came well before any of the "effects" attributed to the gods. We have thunder and lightening being attributed to gods, but alas they are just narural phenomenon. Theists have been seeing the effect of their gods getting whittled down to very littel by science. What's left for you theists to pin your God to? The gaps are closing.

So it's like if you ask about "yourself", are you an idea, idea + existence, or just seen to exist. I would say we are category two.

We individuals are both. If I am observed as a bystander on a city sidewalk the observer may not have any judgment about me at all. I'm observed existing but not nothing else. Friends and family will have ideas formed about me due to interaction. There's my name, memories they have, things I've said, etc. As for Gods, they aren't known to exist independently of human imagination, so they are most likely just ideas. There's no indication otherwise that is compelling. You might say the conviction of the 9-11 hijackers indicates they were following a real God, but I'll bet you will say they were acting on their own authority, even though these Muslims climed to be following God.

Our idea of own self is there + we exist. Our idea of ourselves can be wrong so that our real existence is something else then we imagine ourselves tot be + it's possible we didn't exist (if our parents didn't meet). We aren't necessary being, but we can rule out that we are a mere idea. So we are category two.

Correct. Regardless what we think of ourselves we exist as real beings.

However, I'm saying what we observe about God (which can be three categories from all we know perspective) we rule out 1 and 2, and see he is type 3. This is due to observation that his magnitude is at the level of being necessary.

Well #3 is irrelevant. But what is it you think you observe about a real God that isn't just imagined by you? If this God of yours really exists amnd you as an ordinary mortal can sense it with ordinary senses, then you will be able to explain how atheists can do the same.

So, explain what you observe of a God existing in reality and not just imagined.

 

[Link]

Well #3 is wrong since by your using the word "god" you have an idea. whether any God exists or not. So that leaves 1 and 2.

This makes no sense as I just noted. You, and other theists, use words and other symbols that represent the idea.

An example would be people seeing leaves fall to the ground from trees but not have any knowledge about gravity. They would just observe the effects of gravity, but no idea about it, nor any word. But that's not the case. The many thousands of ideas of gods are very old, and inconsistent. So it's evidence the idea came well before any of the "effects" attributed to the gods. We have thunder and lightening being attributed to gods, but alas they are just narural phenomenon. Theists have been seeing the effect of their gods getting whittled down to very littel by science. What's left for you theists to pin your God to? The gaps are closing.

We individuals are both. If I am observed as a bystander on a city sidewalk the observer may not have any judgment about me at all. I'm observed existing but not nothing else. Friends and family will have ideas formed about me due to interaction. There's my name, memories they have, things I've said, etc. As for Gods, they aren't known to exist independently of human imagination, so they are most likely just ideas. There's no indication otherwise that is compelling. You might say the conviction of the 9-11 hijackers indicates they were following a real God, but I'll bet you will say they were acting on their own authority, even though these Muslims climed to be following God.

Correct. Regardless what we think of ourselves we exist as real beings.

Well #3 is irrelevant. But what is it you think you observe about a real God that isn't just imagined by you? If this God of yours really exists amnd you as an ordinary mortal can sense it with ordinary senses, then you will be able to explain how atheists can do the same.

So, explain what you observe of a God existing in reality and not just imagined.

Salam

I just found some post this:

“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).

I think the soul has vision. This is love (sees and assesses unseen beauty) and awe (sees and assesses majesty and justice of God).

However, you probably are trying to say how do we witness the logical necessity of God.

The human brain is composed of logical side and emotional side. Emotional assess beauty and majesty in emotional terms. The logical side just sees God as a mathematical/logical fact.

Another question if God transcends our vision, how do we see it at all. Well it's like looking at the sun, if we get to close to the sun, we burn, but far it's fine and with some atmosphere blocking it's intensity. God is also veiled, but we can push and get closer, never arriving at God.

But he is there is the clear horizon, for believers they move forward to him while the disbelievers and double-faced Muslims, they run away from him and towards other entities.

Also, in the unseen realm, everything exists in everything vision somehow and everything is in everything is the first rule of recognizing the unseen kingdom.

We get closer to light if we attach ourselves to sincere servants of God. In this case, they are travelling towards God. We can see the pointing direction towards God and that he is absolutely huge, even if we don't contain it's hugeness.

Like in math, we sometimes have limits by infinities, and sometimes approaching infinity by infinity. Even though we don't grasp infinity fully, we still model equations and in computer science set theory and run time algorithms it is important to consider these models of infinity.

God can be seen to what is approached or being ran away from, by every soul. The ones running away are lying to themselves about God and the ones approaching God they know what they are getting closer to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The whole set up is to show why.

Well, you failed

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Things can't be defined into existence.

I agree things can't be defined into existence. What are we really discussing than, regarding God is three options.

(1) He is seen in imagination only.
(2) He is seen in both imagination and reality (conceptually can be imagined + can be seen to exist).
(3) He can only be seen to exist.

Now I'm talking about something unique about God, is that 3 Uniquely applies to Him.

You are limiting to 3 options.

There is a 4th option.

God is unknowable essence. There is no direct way to knowing God.

This is what Quran says:

6:103.

"No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. For He is the Most Subtle, All-Aware. No human vision perceives Him, whereas He perceives all they see."

 

[ratiocinator]

The logical side just sees God as a mathematical/logical fact.

Another empty assertion.

Why have you totally failed to provide any logic that gets us to any or of God?

Every supposed logical argument for a God that I've seen has obvious flaws, and you seem to be struggling to even produce something clear enough to assess as a logical argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

Mathematics is a wonderful field, but it can't take the responsibility for demonstrating the existence of things in the real world.

Mathematical entities exist in mathematics. They exist as ideas which may be useful, even very useful indeed, but are not "real" in the conventional sense.

Whether they correspond to anything that exists elsewhere, or are useful to illustrate things that exist, or are just curiosities that may well correspond to nothing that exists in reality must be determined outside of math itself.

For a particularly clear example, the Koch Snowflake is well defined in mathematics, but it will not serve as evidence that sections of concrete snowflakes in the real world somehow have infinite perimeters.

Nor is that an oddity. Many other mathematical concepts, even very useful ones such as imaginary numbers, simply do not have known counterparts in the real world. They are abstractions - and humanly created abstractions at that.

 

[firedragon]

It's trivially easy to imagine any of the endless different versions of 'God' that people believe in God don't exist. In fact, I can say with absolute certainty that most of them do not exist because they contradict each other.

Interesting. Thus, in your view, which "version" of God is most reasonable?

 

[firedragon]

Since we can't even find definitive proof there is a god

Hmm. What would you accept as proof for God? What's your epistemology?

 

[LuisDantas]

Beyond establishing what a god would be and whether it can possibly exist, we would also have to establish whether it is useful; how it is useful; and how to care for its usefulness and deal with the drawbacks that come with it.

But that of course causes problems with the typical Abrahamic expectations. It would amount to not only making the gods human creations, but a full blown human responsibility. Quite against the grain of the most common expectations of Abrahamic creeds.

 

[Link]

You are limiting to 3 options.

There is a 4th option.

God is unknowable essence. There is no direct way to knowing God.

This is what Quran says:

6:103.

"No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. For He is the Most Subtle, All-Aware. No human vision perceives Him, whereas He perceives all they see."

Salam

You might want to see post 62.

 

[metis]

Hmm. What would you accept as proof for God? What's your epistemology?

Objective evidence using the scientific method.

 

[firedragon]

Objective evidence using the scientific method.

But it's a category error. Against science. Against the philosophy of science. Against logic and philosophy altogether.

 

[LuisDantas]

But it's a category error. Against science. Against the philosophy of science. Against logic and philosophy altogether.

If you want to claim that god is scientifically undetectable, then you would have to explain how it is real at all, and what meaning it would have for it to be real.

 

[firedragon]

If you want to claim that god is scientifically undetectable, then you would have to explain how it is real at all

No I don't have to. Because I didn't make that claim. So this is an aunt sally attempt.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay, keep on being mysterious or whatever.

 

[McBell]

Okay, keep on being mysterious or whatever.

Well, they could use the practice...

 

[Koldo]

(3) He can only be seen to exist.

Let me just state that this sentence sounds like broken english. I think I understand what you mean by it due to the context, but I am not sure. I would definitely recommend you to rephrase it.

Now I'm talking about something unique about God, is that 3 Uniquely applies to Him.

Necessary facts.

A necessary fact is something that holds true in all possible worlds. Possible worlds means logically possible. This means for example mathematics. 1+1=2 is consistent and holds true in all possible worlds.

I also believe morality is like that. Moral rules are necessary truths.

Necessary Existence.

This would be an Existence that has to be there in all logical possible worlds.

Difference between asserting necessary and seeing

I can assert a pizza is necessary in all worlds. However it's impossible to conceive that no logical possible world can exist without a pizza. In fact, conceiving of a possible world without a pizza is easy and so there is a difference in asserting and conceiving. It's impossible to conceive a pizza as a necessary existence.

If God Exists

I find over the years with my experience with Atheists, they will assume in every argument, God doesn't exist and you trying to cheat them with words to make them believe.

If God doesn't exist, there is no proving Him. This is for sure. But like I said earlier, if God exists, I believe he is of category 3 out of these 3 possibilities:

(1) Can only be seen to exist in imagination and possibly seen not to exist in a logical possible world.
(2) Can be seen in in imagination or witnessed in reality, can be imagine to exist or not exist in a logical possible world.
(3) Can only be seen to exist in reality (cannot be imagined to exist nor imagine not to exist, only seen to exist).

God is a proof of himself for his creation

What does this mean? For example, you are yourself evidence that you exist. When you think, when you talk, you see yourself exist. Now God is I'm arguing is not only seen to exist, but, while you can imagine yourself not existing in a possible world (suppose your parents didn't meet), you can't imagine God doesn't exist. In fact, he is evident in his existence.

Why do you say I can't imagine God not existing? I am imagining that right now.

If this is true, what can we observe about him.

Fully conception of God is impossible. But we know things about it. That's it good, that's wise, that's powerful, that it's compassionate, etc.

I'm saying from viewpoint of existence, we can beyond observing it to exist, know it's impossible for it not to not exist in any possible logical world. This how we know there is only one God.

Greatness.

Greatness facts are also to me necessary truths.

Observing the Magnitude of God.

If God is of type three, when we think of his magnitude in terms of life, we see there is no life he lacks at all. If he was lacking any in life amount, he would be less great.

What does it mean to lack in life ammount?

Lesser ideas of God can be imagined.

We can imagine Creator be whatever, this is true. In fact, three is only true of the true reality of God.

Why Necessary Being and Absolute Existence is synonymous.

His existence is filled solidified into a unity a oneness and a single essence, but from another perspective, nothing can exist but is rooted somehow from this oneness, and all perfections or beauty or glory is found in this being. Life wise he is immense to the extent, no possible life in any possible world, can exist, beyond it. He is the ALL.

Why Necessary Being can only be God.

Everything else by default is dependent on it. Life wise, if there exists any independent existence possible in any possible world, then it's proven by that, God is not Necessary Existence. This is because an existence in some world x that is logically coherent can exist without God. The reason this would be possible, is because God would no longer be absolute existence if this was the case. God in this case, would be a lesser magnitude in terms of existence.

Does God exist in imagination or in reality or both?

If in imagination only, the story is over. No need to reflect. You can't prove God in this case.

If both, this argument doesn't work. You will have to go to a different means to perceive God.

But when think about it, when we recall God, we see that magnitude of his is so great, that the Predicate argument that existence is irrelevant and doesn't add to the concept, is false, by Kant. In case of God, Getting to the intense level of Necessary type existence, does add to it. It's actually the only way you can know there are no more gods then God. Oneness of God in holy books hence was always proving God, but proving more. It was killing two or more birds in one stone.

Greatest Human being.

In the hadiths, Mohammad is said to be the greatest human being. In fact, in the hadiths Ali is said to be the greatest human being. Contradiction? Not really.

It's not. In fact, there is Blessing prayer that calls each of the members of Ahlulbayt, that. A long Salawat I can share the link to it if anyone is interested.

I'm not sure how "greatest" or "best" works in English, but if a human being submits to God in the best manner possible, and there is no neglect or fault on their part in that, they are maximally great as human beings in Quran understanding.

If they embrace every blessing coming their way with utmost power and submission to God, then, there is no reason to say one is better then the other, they've reached all God can ask of humans to do.

There is more then one best in this scenario. And it doesn't downgrade their status to be in their realm as equals.

Why God can't have an equal or twin?

Unlike everything else, repetition would mean God is significantly less great than the greatest possible being. This is because God's Magnitude is comprehensive of all life, power, beauty, etc, and life and existence wise, that solidified intensity oneness where it's all found, can only be one single reality/essence.

So when we think about this from this perspective, it's realized, that only God be seen as needing to be unique to maintain the status of his greatness.

Mohamad doesn't lose status if Fatima is his equal. God does if he has an equal.

The Ontological argument and arguments for oneness of God are one and the same.

God absolute existence proven he exists is trivial. If he exists, we can see he exists. The ontological argument is even proving more then this. It's proving it's not that we happen to have a God/Creator and some other logical world could've have a different type of Creator. God is a Necessary Being. And it also proves there can't be an independent existence aside from God. Everything else possible - is dependent on it.

But for the sake of relevance to Atheists, it proves, God cannot be imagined to exist or not exist, but rather only seen to exist.

The question of defining things to existence we agree upon, it's impossible. The argument in the OP is that God is not only observable, but when we look at it, we see it can't be imagined to exist or not exist. Only seen to exist because the nature of it's magnitude and it being necessary.

Let me see if I got this right: Are you saying that I can't truly imagine God because of how complex he is? Since his existence equals to the maximum magnitude, I can't actually imagine God. Is that what you are saying?

Because if it is, then the same can be said about pretty much everything...
I can't actually accurately imagine you, for example. I can't imagine accurately the position, quantity and size of each cell in your body. Nor do I know your mind fully.

 

[ratiocinator]

Interesting. Thus, in your view, which "version" of God is most reasonable?

I don't really see any of them (of the ones I've heard about, anyway) as reasonable. Some can be easily be dismissed because they are falsified by evidence or are self-contradictory. A detached and indifferent deist type God is clearly possible and wouldn't contradict anything, but I still see no reason to take the idea seriously.

 

[firedragon]

I don't really see any of them (of the ones I've heard about, anyway) as reasonable.

Which one's have you heard?

 

[ratiocinator]

Which one's have you heard?

About 1.2 × the number of believers who have described what they believe in to me. Why would it matter anyway (even it was practical to post them all, which it isn't)? None of them came with any reason to take the ideas seriously.

If you think there's a version that does come with such a reason, then all you have to do is put it forward....