that at least one god exists

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

omar, im no longer clear what you are arguing for. If you want to raise a point i’ll happily answer it, but your not bringing much more than sarcasm to the table at the moment.

Its an expression. In this instance id say you could call it a causal or power hierarchy if you like. The higher set “gives rise to” the sets it contains.

22

omar, im no longer clear what you are arguing for. If you want to raise a point i’ll happily answer it, but your not bringing much more than sarcasm to the table at the moment.

O- There have been points made and many of then you have similarly raised.

  1. If we say:“nothing is self-existent.” Then there is no God, or that God = nothing.
    2.This would lead to an ontological infinite regress of dependant beings
  2. Some say that: “Postulating an infinite number of real things leads to all kinds of paradoxa.” But not one is mentioned. THe existence of God leads to other paradoxes and these are ignored. Perhaps they are not paradoxes, but self-imposed limits.
    4.Some said: “Paradoxa cannot exist in reality since it would entail a true logical contradiction.” This is to equate what is with what we can think of.
    This leads to the creation of concepts that serve a role within a rational theory. That is why I say that all religions are magnificently rational, yet their greatest asset is their greatest flaw when placed side by side. Which raises another point that God is more creature than creator a point made long ago by Feuerbach, for example.
    Those are a few points and I hope I have kept my sarcasm to a limit this time.
23

5- This set is further contained by God.

Wrong. God is an individual. Not a set.
O- What is bigger, the creation or the creator? Was God within nature or outside of it? Is God nature itself rerefied?

Quote:
7- We do not expand the Circle eternally, but all circles are formed arbitraerly, as if ad hoc. The expansion can and would continue and is only kept in check by concepts like nature, God or universe, all abstractions of the expansion which eludes our experience, leaving out and forgetting or worse denying and delusional what there is.
It is the concepts themselves that define our reality, what we tell ourselve “is” or is not, but under creative consideration, or, scepticism we find that our limits are self-imposed restrains.

There is no regress to infinite.
O- Only because we are finite in all attempts. A line can extend infinetly…so can a causal chain. We do not.

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.

24

How would we have grounds for saying such? Experience can only tell us what is the case, not what cannot be the case.

I wouldnt worry about the sarcasm thing btw, just dont let it get in the way of communication. I’ll leave this for another thread anyway.

I think you need to justify this some more.

25

I don’t understand how you reason.

26

omar wrote:
Oreso:

  1. If we say:“nothing is self-existent.” Then there is no God, or that God = nothing.
    How would we have grounds for saying such?
    O- It is there all along. “Nothing”, it was said, “is self-existent”. Well then, either Nothing is God or God = nothing, because God is defined as self-existent.

Experience can only tell us what is the case, not what cannot be the case.
O- Experience is more limited and “what is the case” requires constant updating. Once, what was the case was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. What does experience tells us? My granny, God bless her, still goes with experience and common sense and swears that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Quote:

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.
I think you need to justify this some more.
O- I can’t see why. I have re-read what I wrote but I fell comfortable with it. It is commonsensical based on the sentence passed by Sam above. Based on what he says, my conclusion is rational.

27

[quote=“omar”]

O- What is bigger, the creation or the creator? Was God within nature or outside of it? Is God nature itself rerefied?

This question is irrelevant.
O- Only to you.

What is bigger is not necessarily a set containing the smaller. God is not nature. He is distincted from it. To say that God is outside nature is a spatial metaphor.
O- So is a “set” nothing but another metaphor and with God all you can ever hope for is metaphors.

Quote:
O- Only because we are finite in all attempts. A line can extend infinetly…so can a causal chain. We do not.

No, there is no further level of analysis than reality itself.
O- “Reality itself” is another abstraction. Be it as it may, it makes no connection with my critique. Reality exceeds our senses (or is the sky blue in-itself?) and thus we again force what is before and after us into a narrow at-this-moment-in-time. I disagree with the God-eye-view you promise of Reality, this concept, this meta-empirical concept.

Quote:

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.

I don’t understand how you reason.
O- What don’t you understand? Is God a real being or an unreal idea of a being?

28

omar I think you are playing fast and easy with the “nothing” bit.The original argument does not argue this.Line 1 mentions the “nothing” but it is in parenthesis.It was used for explanation purposes only.It should not lead you to equivocate.

29

Er, thats not related at all. Im saying how could one possibly justify the statement: “nothing is self-existent” when there is no possible experience that would support it. It is trying to prove a negative.

So your telling me this is a rational argument:

  1. Some beings exist
  2. Some beings do not exist.
  3. Thus, God is neither?

Eh? Why cant god belong to the category of beings that exist or the ones that dont?

30

Experience can only tell us what is the case, not what cannot be the case.
O- Experience is more limited and “what is the case” requires constant updating. Once, what was the case was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. What does experience tells us? My granny, God bless her, still goes with experience and common sense and swears that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Er, thats not related at all. Im saying how could one possibly justify the statement: “nothing is self-existent” when there is no possible experience that would support it. It is trying to prove a negative.
O- Then you and I agree. I have been saying the same all along…in my own distorted way, but the idea coincides. Indeed “Nothing is self-evident” is impossible to prove or disprove. However, saying such is to set up the table in a certain way…to prepare it for the daily bread. It is part of a theory, sometimes naked theology, but I dislike meta-physics presented as matter-of-fact, as what is the case, rather than what is the case in our little itty-bitty heads.

We end up with the set of real beings, and the set of unreal beings. We can’t go further.
O- Then Agnosticism is the logical view on the matter. Not theism nor astheism.
I think you need to justify this some more.
O- I can’t see why. I have re-read what I wrote but I fell comfortable with it. It is commonsensical based on the sentence passed by Sam above. Based on what he says, my conclusion is rational.

So your telling me this is a rational argument:

  1. Some beings exist
  2. Some beings do not exist.
  3. Thus, God is neither?
    O- Look at it this way:
    1- God could be like some beings that exist.(In fact I have already discussed as much with Uccissore).
    2- God could be like some beings that do not exist, but as ideas.
    3- Thus, how do you tell which from 1 and 2 is true?

Eh? Why cant god belong to the category of beings that exist or the ones that dont?
O- The either theism or atheism. BHut in regards to three, agnosticism.

31

and the average human is 1% jewish

32

Huh?

33

Dont worry. Soon enough he will learn that you cannot have a debate on your own, and will perhaps start forming arguments with a rational form and content, maybe even with grammar, or else he will go away and bother us no more with pretentious irrelevance.

34

I see that he has a thread going.There is no title just a sign(sad face). :frowning: We call him TC now.Go figure!

35

See thread PHOTOGRAPHS OF GOD to prove that there is at least one God.Maybe more.It seems that the sky is the limit.Go figure!

36

arisce i doubt that god is smegul lol that is funny though :smiley: thanks for the good laugh.