What do you think about the seeing argument?

[Link]

Threads about it:

My argument from vision circular?

I posted this on a different thread. Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular. I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument. (V) Value to who we are (S) Sight to who we are. (G) God exists If V...

www.religiousforums.com

Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value). p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are. p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)...

www.religiousforums.com

Objective Value and seeing argument!

Salam (1) Is Value of who we are objective or subjective. We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are. We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad. Asking other humans feedback is not a...

www.religiousforums.com

And many more in the past.

 

[sun rise]

Therefore God exists.

It's been said in different ways in different places. This from the Zohar: "HaShem is concealed from our minds but revealed in our hearts."

The human intellect is a wonderful tool but there are things beyond its ken. I know that Divinity exists not because of a chain of reasoning but because of experience and intuition. My sense of the nature of Divinity was shaped by a chain of reasoning but reason supported what I already knew.

I of course am not a Muslim but I find that 24:35 expresses what I'm writing: "Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills."

And how does that light enter us? Not through a chain of logic. The New Troubadours many decades ago had a song "Change Can Come". You might prefer to think of it as the radiance of Allah but the meaning is the same:

Change can come in the twinkling of an eye,
In the ripple upon a lake.
Change can come in the color of a flower,
In the sparkle of morning dew,
When the Light catches you.
In that tiny moment, you are transformed.

And the radiance of Christ
Shines forth in reply
From within, and has made itself known,
And from the two is born
A new world.

 

[Link]

It's been said in different ways in different places. This from the Zohar: "HaShem is concealed from our minds but revealed in our hearts."

I think with my dark deeds, ways and heart, it's the opposite. I know God exists with certainty through the mind, but my heart is polytheistic attaching to worthless things and turning others into gods.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Threads about it:

My argument from vision circular?

I posted this on a different thread. Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular. I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument. (V) Value to who we are (S) Sight to who we are. (G) God exists If V...

www.religiousforums.com

Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value). p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are. p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)...

www.religiousforums.com

Objective Value and seeing argument!

Salam (1) Is Value of who we are objective or subjective. We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are. We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad. Asking other humans feedback is not a...

www.religiousforums.com

And many more in the past.

You needed to give a couple of sentences explaining what this "Seeing Argument is." It is not fair to expect people to visit website or google it on their own. FWIW I did try to google "Seeing Argument" and nothing by that name exists that I can find.

 

[sun rise]

I think with my dark deeds, ways and heart, it's the opposite. I know God exists with certainty through the mind, but my heart is polytheistic attaching to worthless things and turning others into gods.

I would not call it the heart but, in Arabic terms the "nafs". It sounds like you are trying to move beyond the "Nafs al-Ammara Bissu" and hopefully into the realm of the "Nafs al-Lawwamathe" and, God willing, soon to the "Nafs al-Mutmaʿinna" The Meaning of Nafs

 

[danieldemol]

You needed to give a couple of sentences explaining what this "Seeing Argument is." It is not fair to expect people to visit website or google it on their own. FWIW I did try to google "Seeing Argument" and nothing by that name exists that I can find.

If you look at the links provided by the OP you'll find its PRATT anyway in my view.

 

[McBell]

You needed to give a couple of sentences explaining what this "Seeing Argument is." It is not fair to expect people to visit website or google it on their own. FWIW I did try to google "Seeing Argument" and nothing by that name exists that I can find.

As best I can tell, this is The Seeing Argument:

I posted this on a different thread.

Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular.

I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument.

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

If V then S. (If there is a value to who we are, there is a vision to who we are)
If S then G. (Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can)
V (Who we are is not an illusion including the value part of who we are and our deeds)
Therefore G. (Therefore God exists)

This is a valid form. I would argue sound as well. But it's definitely not circular.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You needed to give a couple of sentences explaining what this "Seeing Argument is." It is not fair to expect people to visit website or google it on their own. FWIW I did try to google "Seeing Argument" and nothing by that name exists that I can find.

^ this

 

[Link]

You won't find it on google since I am the pioneer of it.

 

[Link]

It's unfortunate people think the argument is invalid, when it is valid.

 

[Link]

The following from one of the threads, is a good way to see it's valid.

Since validity is all you're looking for, all that's needed is to add 2 lines to resolve the problem, I think, and also maybe a tiny adjustment in language to make it clearer.

(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists

Here is my revised version:

1. Each person has an absolute objective value
2. Therefore: an absolutely objective judge exists
3. No human is absolutely objective
4. God is defined as a non-human absolutely objective judge
5. Therefore: God exists

Click to expand...

In your revised version, 2 assumes two hidden premises.

1. That our value to who we are requires perception
2. Absolutely objective judge alone can see our value

My premises can be rephrased as

If there exists accurate value to who we are, then there exists a perception to who we are.
If there exists a perception to who we are, then God exists since he alone can perceive our exact value
There exists an objective value to who we are (same as your premise 1)
Therefore God exists.

I forgot to tell people there is rule in logic A-> B B-> C means A-> C (transitional rule).

Another way we can phrase the argument.

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).
p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.
p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens p3 with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

p1: Not G -> Not S
p2: Not S -> Not V
p3: V
c: G (modus tollens p3 with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's unfortunate people think the argument is invalid, when it is valid.

The rules of logic are what determine whether an argument is valid or not.

 

[Link]

The rules of logic are what determine whether an argument is valid or not.

Yes, and they show it's valid.

 

[ChristineM]

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).
p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.
p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens p3 with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

p1 is assumption, you are assuming that a god is needed to judge who a person is. You assume that if a god exists said god is even interested in who anyone is.
p2 science has worked out a precise value of a human, the elements that make up your body are worth about $1.00 on the market, your skin slightly more at around $4.00 if sold as hide. Funnily enough insurance companies put a different value on the human body.
p3 become a leap of faith and not a logical step.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Threads about it:

My argument from vision circular?

I posted this on a different thread. Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular. I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument. (V) Value to who we are (S) Sight to who we are. (G) God exists If V...

www.religiousforums.com

Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value). p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are. p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)...

www.religiousforums.com

Objective Value and seeing argument!

Salam (1) Is Value of who we are objective or subjective. We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are. We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad. Asking other humans feedback is not a...

www.religiousforums.com

And many more in the past.

Define good. We are all sinners.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Threads about it:

My argument from vision circular?

I posted this on a different thread. Let's discuss the validity of the argument here. Some people see my argument from God's vision as circular. I am arguing in this thread, at the very least, it's a valid form of argument. (V) Value to who we are (S) Sight to who we are. (G) God exists If V...

www.religiousforums.com

Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value). p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are. p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)...

www.religiousforums.com

Objective Value and seeing argument!

Salam (1) Is Value of who we are objective or subjective. We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are. We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad. Asking other humans feedback is not a...

www.religiousforums.com

And many more in the past.

None of these premises are even clear or make any sense, and no evidence is provided that any of them are true, so how can anyone determine if it's a sound argument?

 

[Link]

None of these premises are even clear or make any sense, and no evidence is provided that any of them are true, so how can anyone determine if it's a sound argument?

I've argued for them in other threads.