The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

I have been wrong millions of times in my life. I have no problem accepting I am wrong again, however I would like to understand how I am wrong. While you are insistent that I am wrong, I simply think you are mistaken in interpreting what I am saying. I either am not stating it clear enough, or I am completely missing some point. Though I would consider myself no fool, I apparently need a very thorough breakdown of my error if indeed I am wrong.

 

[Curious George]

'God does not exist', 'one God exists' 'a number of Gods exist'.

if God is in those number of gods then God does exist. If God is not in those number of gods then he does not exist.

 

[Curious George]

why ?

the point is that apple was arbitrarily inserted for X. My point was I did not say apple or nothing, I said apple or not apple.

 

[Curious George]

why ?

the point is that apple was arbitrarily inserted for X. My point was I did not say apple or nothing, I said apple or not apple.

and even that is not completely accurate. rather than apple or not apple I suggested either an apple does exist in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag. While the extra language may seem similar, the subtle difference is necessary.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It is a vastly different situation if there are multiple Gods, though; since we are stating a very specific 'fruit'. In a sense 'many Gods exist' throws the idea of your God existing in among them very much into doubt, given 'his' own statements.

the extreme specificity of the word 'God' is the same issue as stating 'apple'; there are many possibilities. This is the basis of your error, which I have been explaining for many posts; it's not being stated to you un-clearly.

We are attempting to establish the basis for a logical question. Making it a dichotomy makes it illogical. I have rephrased the true logical question, or at least one version of it, several ways.

The very nature of the answer itself is so significant in its various implications that reducing it to either/or is not valid.

 

[Curious George]

It is a vastly different situation if there are multiple Gods, though; since we are stating a very specific 'fruit'. In a sense 'many Gods exist' throws the idea of your God existing in among them very much into doubt, given 'his' own statements.

the extreme specificity of the word 'God' is the same issue as stating 'apple'; there are many possibilities. This is the basis of your error, which I have been explaining for many posts; it's not being stated to you un-clearly.

We are attempting to establish the basis for a logical question. Making it a dichotomy makes it illogical. I have rephrased the true logical question, or at least one version of it, several ways.

The very nature of the answer itself is so significant in its various implications that reducing it to either/or is not valid.

I am sorry but I still do not see your point. I do not see how it is a vastly different situation if there are multiple gods or Gods.

 

[Curious George]

the extreme specificity of the word 'God' is the same issue as stating 'apple'; there are many possibilities. This is the basis of your error, which I have been explaining for many posts; it's not being stated to you un-clearly.

I would disagree, the extreme specificity of the word God or Apple is necessary and I do not think it an error. You suggested that it was begging the question. I explained how it was not begging the question. I am going to either need a better explanation of how it is begging the question, specifically on which implicit premise that it implies.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Any specific God or pantheon existing alone [ie., being a singular answer and not 'many including this one'] changes the entire basis of the universe and its workings, as opposed to a larger free-for-all where a number of different philosophies exist. In some cases the presence of some would negate the presence of others; in one case the presence of the One God would either negate all others, or make the One God a liar to his own followers. I realize these are basically Step Two to the original premise but that original premise is not meant to be a stand-alone idea; the result, when it is discovered, creates an entire set of subsequent statements and further questions all dependent on the first. That's why getting the first question right in the first place, is paramount. Asking the wrong first question, makes the entire process useless, and gives you a wrong answer to begin with.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I would disagree, the extreme specificity of the word God or Apple is necessary and I do not think it an error..

Oh, its definitely necessary, and that's why your dichotomy was false.

I explained how it was not begging the question.

You did not explain it successfully. Especially now in light of the fact that you note you used the One God intentionally.

 

[Curious George]

Do you feel that I am suggesting a 50/50 probability? I am not. Which is why the bag is a useful analogy. Theoretically anything can exist in this bag which we did not limit in size. So, perhaps to what you are taking exception is the probability portion of Pascals wager which I agree is illogical. I have in no way tried to imply that a probability should be derived from this and if I have that was a mistake.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, nothing about the probability.

 

[Curious George]

Oh, its definitely necessary, and that's why your dichotomy was false.

You did not explain it successfully. Especially now in light of the fact that you note you used the One God intentionally.

let me try again. with fruit or god? fruit would be easier so I will offer that here. However, if you would rather I would use God, just say so; and, I will do so in another post.

Premise 1: Apples can exist
Premise 2: The bag will fit an Apple

Conclusion: Either an apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag

this is not begging the question because there is no implicit premise in the conclusion that is presupposed. rather this is more closely linked to the law of non contradiction. In fact, so much so that we can state my conclusion is meaningless because all I have proven is law of non contradiction based on the law of non contradiction. If you are suggesting that this was begging the question I can see your point however since this is a fundamental rule of logic it is not illogical to state.

 

[godnotgod]

There are billions of copies of a learning device on this planet.
That tool signifies the Toolmaker....

We shall meet our Maker....each one of us.

That makes man an artifact, in the same manner as a pot is an artifact of the potter. Is that what we are? In fact, it makes the entire universe an artifact, a made 'thing', with no life of its own other than what its 'maker' allows.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

let me try again. with fruit or god? fruit would be easier so I will offer that here. However, if you would rather I would use God, just say so; and, I will do so in another post.

Premise 1: Apples can exist
Premise 2: The bag will fit an Apple

Conclusion: Either an apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag

this is not begging the question because there is no implicit premise in the conclusion that is presupposed. rather this is more closely linked to the law of non contradiction. In fact, so much so that we can state my conclusion is meaningless because all I have proven is law of non contradiction based on the law of non contradiction. If you are suggesting that this was begging the question I can see your point however since this is a fundamental rule of logic it is not illogical to state.

I apologize for entering the discussion here, but could you clarify briefly what you are trying to convey. I was also wondering that if you are discussing the possibiltity of God(s) existence then in order to do so what what be qualifications for such a God or Gods. In other words, what characteristics or attributes would distuinguish, this God, as being a God?

 

[Curious George]

No, nothing about the probability.

Then assuming I was putting forth the beginnings of Pascals argument, I do not believe any professor has counted pascal as begging the question. When he said that God exists or God does not exist.

 

[Curious George]

Then assuming I was putting forth the beginnings of Pascals argument, I do not believe any professor has counted pascal as begging the question. When he said that God exists or God does not exist.

So, I would like a clear understanding of how I am begging the question.

 

[godnotgod]

So, I would like a clear understanding of how I am begging the question.

Your premise is that apples exist. We know that apples exist, but we do not know if God or gods exist, logically speaking. So the analogy seems to fail on this point. You cannot say, for example, that God is in the bag or is not in the bag.

The premise of the question as to whether God exists or not is rooted in the deeper question as to whether there is eternal life or not, but ultimately rests on whether the mind is thinking in dualistic terms or not. To a non-dual mind, the question of existence or non-existence does not arise, as such a mind dwells precisely between all dualities, because it sees and understands them as relative and complimentary to one another.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Your premise is that apples exist. We know that apples exist, but we do not know if God or gods exist, logically speaking. So the analogy seems to fail on this point. You cannot say, for example, that God is in the bag or is not in the bag.

The premise of the question as to whether God exists or not is rooted in the deeper question as to whether there is eternal life or not, but ultimately rests on whether the mind is thinking in dualistic terms or not. To a non-dual mind, the question of existence or non-existence does not arise, as such a mind dwells precisely between all dualities, because it sees and understands them as relative and complimentary to one another.

Question? Is the mind self-existent?

 

[godnotgod]

I don’t really want to get into personalities here for that’s not what forums are about, but we are very clearly looking at an obsession when you say ‘it is in your mind day and night’, and I think it’s fair to say the assessment is supported by the enormous number of posts, repeating the same thing, and time spent seeking and copying statements and articles from other sources to bolster and reinforce the beliefs.

If you lived in Plato's Cave for your entire life, and one day caught a glimpse of the sunlight, you would be forever changed.

Catching such a glimpse is not belief, is it?

Now, after having done so, you COULD build a doctrine around your vision, and make others believe in that doctrine. That is what religion is: a second hand account of the first hand spiritual experience. Is this difference clear to you?

I post not to reinforce belief, but to provide information that others can use to go see for themselves. I am not interested in belief in any particular doctrine, but you seem to be obsessed with stating and re-stating that belief over and over again ad nauseum no matter what I have said to the contrary. In fact, you have yet to provide the doctrine of belief to which you allude. Enlightenment, satori, and pondfrogleapsplash are not beliefs..I repeat...NOT beliefs...they are EXPERIENCES, without belief, opinion, idea, concept or conjecture attached to them in any way.

Regarding my reference to Benoit's book, I discovered an absolutely free .pdf download of the entire book, and so, for your benefit, I am here providing the link:

http://www.selfdefinition.org/zen/Hubert%20Benoit%20-%20The%20Supreme%20Doctrine%20-%20Zen%20and%20the%20Psychology%20of%20Transformation.pdf

BTW, you may see a seeming contradiction in my claim of no-doctrine while referring you to a book with the title 'Supreme Doctrine' in it. Well, Zen calls itself the 'doctrineless doctrine', and 'a finger pointing to the moon', and that is what makes Zen's 'doctrineless doctrine' supreme. Hoping you see this clearly. Later...

 

[Curious George]

I apologize for entering the discussion here, but could you clarify briefly what you are trying to convey. I was also wondering that if you are discussing the possibiltity of God(s) existence then in order to do so what what be qualifications for such a God or Gods. In other words, what characteristics or attributes would distuinguish, this God, as being a God?

Any definition of god, gods or God will work as long as we are consistent throughout the argument. My point is simply that taking one specific example and saying this god exists or does not exist the same as stating a fundamental rule of logic: the law of non-contradiction.