God cannot be defined into existence.

[ratiocinator]

It's irrelevant to your claim. Then this is projection.

Not an answer.

Not an answer.

 

[firedragon]

Not an answer.

Again, what are the evidences you have seen religions or religious people have given you and what reason did you embrace to reject them so far?

You don't need to give me all the evidences ever provided by everyone one in history to answer your own general claim. Just at least one or two.

Thanks.

 

[Link]

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.

I think Quran says it rightly, if people actually can recall the oneness of God and recall God as one, they turn away running away from it. Very few people in these dark times grasp how God is one not through counting, but the fact he is one such that he misses nothing (nothing can be absent from him).

God is filled (Samad) with so much life and if we recall and see that being, it can't be doubted. It can't be seen as an idea that can possible exist or not. It's impossible to grasp this absolute magnitude and see it not overflowing to you and to all things and all possible life knowing it exists.

But I doubt people will grasp it ever.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, what are the evidences you have seen religions or religious people have given you and what reason did you embrace to reject them so far?

I conclude that you are unable to give a version of God and a reason to take it seriously, otherwise you'd at least have addressed the example in this thread and provided something better.

It would make no actual difference if I'd never seen any flawed arguments for God, I'd still be lacking a reason to take any version seriously.

Your line of questioning is clearly pointless and hence evasion.

 

[firedragon]

I conclude that you are unable to give a version of God

Irrelevant to your claim.

It would make no actual difference if I'd never seen any flawed arguments for God, I'd still be lacking a reason to take any version seriously.

Your line of questioning is clearly pointless and hence evasion.

You avoided answer your claim. There was no epistemic responsibility in your claim.

Thanks nevertheless. Cheers.

 

[ratiocinator]

You avoided answer your claim.

I gave you one example, and you've totally ignored it and just demanded more. The conclusion is that you're not really interested in examples, and it's just evasion because you have no good reasons to offer.

Why would you need bad examples in order to give a good one, anyway? It makes zero sense.

The funny thing is that you might actually think you're fooling anybody.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think Quran says it rightly, if people actually can recall the oneness of God and recall God as one, they turn away running away from it. Very few people in these dark times grasp how God is one not through counting, but the fact he is one such that he misses nothing (nothing can be absent from him).

God is filled (Samad) with so much life and if we recall and see that being, it can't be doubted. It can't be seen as an idea that can possible exist or not. It's impossible to grasp this absolute magnitude and see it not overflowing to you and to all things and all possible life knowing it exists.

But I doubt people will grasp it ever.

Let's see if I can follow this.

1. According to your reading of the Qur'an, awareness of the oneness of god is in some sense scary.
2. Many people don't realize that Allah is onipresent.
3. Allah is eternal, everlasting life, and you expect that anyone who ever saw him would instantly believe it.
4. Allah can't be seen as an idea (I probably agree).
5. Awareness of Allah would cause quite the sense of awe.

There is no contradiction in there, but ultimately it is a statement of belief that can be arbitrarily accepted or rejected as anyone sees please.

 

[firedragon]

I gave you one example, and you've totally ignored it and just demanded more.

Hmm. Sorry I missed it. What "example" did you give?

 

[Link]

Let's see if I can follow this.

1. According to your reading of the Qur'an, awareness of the oneness of god is in some sense scary.
2. Many people don't realize that Allah is onipresent.
3. Allah is eternal, everlasting life, and you expect that anyone who ever saw him would instantly believe it.
4. Allah can't be seen as an idea (I probably agree).
5. Awareness of Allah would cause quite the sense of awe.

There is no contradiction in there, but ultimately it is a statement of belief that can be arbitrarily accepted or rejected as anyone sees please.

There is the emotional grasping and the logical. The logic is purely math wise, it exists no matter what scary or nice, mean or nanny type. It does not matter. However, I would say once the logical side sees God existing 100%, the emotional vision side of the brain would look at the same being, so you are right.

I agree how you phrase except I would put it like this:

God is believed to be an idea by atheists when recalling it. If they can recall it's magnitude in terms of possible worlds and necessary being level, they would know it exists with certainty.

Of course, we know this does not mean belief/faith. In Quran, Pharaoh was certain in himself about signs of Moses (a) but deceived himself otherwise.

I think you are grasping math wise, omnipresence, implies, it can't be an idea, yet you talk of it as if this doesn't prove it.

There is also this clause in model logic:

"What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily"

If God's existence is possible, then it means exists by that clause. The only door left to refute the ontological argument is to say God is impossible or possibly impossible. But if there is nothing incoherent of a necessary being (it's possible), then it exists by rules of logic. Should this be a suprise? No. Why? What else is necessary. Math rules, logic, moral truths, yet those are aren't entities. Somehow they also require a mind. Yet they are necessary truths. God is that mind which the necessary truths are in fact possible. But the latter is a different argument. But just showing arguments reinforce each other in this regard. For example, the moral argument for God's existence goes hand to hand with this.

 

[ratiocinator]

Hmm. Sorry I missed it. What "example" did you give?

Missed it?

The OP is one example of a hopless argument for a God, for reasons I've already posted.

The OP is an example, and my reasons are in my replies.

Yet again: there is an example in the OP and my replies to it.

 

[metis]

First, read about methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Then read about the scientific method and its axioms.

I have an approach to this similar to that of Baruch Spinoza. My previous signature statement, which I still sometimes post, says: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

 

[firedragon]

Missed it?

I don't see any evidence provided by anyone in the OP. The Op is only your comments to someone.

 

[firedragon]

I have an approach to this similar to that of Baruch Spinoza. My previous signature statement, which I still sometimes post, says: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

If your position is to "just leave it at that", why did you say scientific physical evidence as your epistemology in addressing the God question? That's a fallacious position. Contradictory.

 

[ratiocinator]

God is believed to be an idea by atheists when recalling it. If they can recall it's magnitude in terms of possible worlds and necessary being level, they would know it exists with certainty.

Magnitude is meaningless in the context. A 'necessary' entity is also logically incoherent.

I think you are grasping math wise, omnipresence, implies, it can't be an idea...

Where's that maths?

"What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily"

Looks like gibberish. Reference?

The only door left to refute the ontological argument is to say God is impossible or possibly impossible.

No, the ontological argument is a mess because (for one thing) it relies on a subjective quality ('greatness').

 

[ratiocinator]

have an approach to this similar to that of Baruch Spinoza. My previous signature statement, which I still sometimes post, says: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

Causation requires time. Time is part of space-time. Space-time is part of the universe. How can it have a cause?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have an approach to this similar to that of Baruch Spinoza. My previous signature statement, which I still sometimes post, says: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

Yeah, but that God can be outside this universe/multiverse and thus not a part of what science can know.

 

[Link]

Looks like gibberish. Reference?

Here is one: The System S5.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is the emotional grasping and the logical. The logic is purely math wise, it exists no matter what scary or nice, mean or nanny type. It does not matter. However, I would say once the logical side sees God existing 100%, the emotional vision side of the brain would look at the same being, so you are right.

Problem is, Allah (or other mainstream versions of Ibrahim's God) can not be logically demonstrated.

What evidence there is indicates not that it exists, but rather that if it did it would be a rather odd entity with no religious value or legitimate role.

If the logic is purely mathematical in nature, then it is inherently futile; it is not possible to show anything about the real world with purely mathematical proofs. A mathematical line or plane can have infinite points, and does. A real world line or plane will not.

Mathematics is inspired by the real world and applied to it. But it has no means, no ability and no responsibility to demonstrate that anything exists in the real world that would conform to its own constructs.

I agree how you phrase except I would put it like this:

God is believed to be an idea by atheists when recalling it. If they can recall it's magnitude in terms of possible worlds and necessary being level, they would know it exists with certainty.

We do not recall god. That is not the proper verb to use here.

We only know of gods because we are told of them by theists and others that propose their existences.

We have nothing to recall; we can only respond to claims made by theists about entities that we have neither need for nor awareness of.

Of course, we know this does not belief/faith. In Quran, Pharaoh was certain in himself about signs of Moses (a) but deceived himself otherwise.

Not sure what you mean to say here.

Perhaps that the signs of Allah's existence can be perceived by disbelievers, but they will not interpret them correctly?

I think you are grasping math wise, omnipresence, implies, it can't be an idea, yet you talk of it as if this doesn't prove it.

Omnipresence is an idea. It indeed proves nothing.

Just because we can imagine omnipresent entities it does not follow that they exist - or even that they could logically somehow come to exist.

If anything, we might perhaps examine the implications and conclude that they can not exist.

There is also this clause in model logic:

"What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily"

If God's existence is possible, then it means exists by that clause. The only door left to refute the ontological argument is to say God is impossible or possibly impossible. But if there is nothing incoherent of a necessary being (it's possible), then it exists by rules of logic. Should this be a suprise? No. Why? What else is necessary. Math rules, logic, moral truths, yet those are aren't entities. Somehow they also require a mind. Yet they are necessary truths. God is that mind which the necessary truths are in fact possible. But the latter is a different argument. But just showing arguments reinforce each other in this regard. For example, the moral argument for God's existence goes hand to hand with this.

I think you mean modal logic here.

That, sorry, makes no logical sense whatsoever. It amounts to saying that you can imagine god as a real entity and therefore it must exist.

It is as unworkable as an argument as Aquinas' Five Ways. As discussed in this link, it is a confusion of metaphysical speculation as if it were an epistemological finding.

Possibly Necessary

DTWW discusses using modal logic to prove that God exists. In the modal system S5, if something is possibly necessary then it logically fo...

www.philosophyetc.net

 

[Link]

More down to earth conversation about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/4p84b4

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Causation requires time. Time is part of space-time. Space-time is part of the universe. How can it have a cause?

Well, there you go. For in effect everything you know that it requires space-time and thus you know that notihng can be beyound that. And I have no doubt that you can make reasons in your mind that makes sense. But that doesn't tell us one way or another if it actually is so.

You are doing philosophy in effect for the induction problem and the cosmological principle, which you both disregard.