For GS

[therealUT]

GS, since you seem confused with regard to my notion of God, I will do my best to clarify:

I. God
A. G1 (Cosmological Argument)
1. Supernatural force with no other characteristics
2. To assign characteristics to this force, without the aid of reason, would be pure blasphemy according to Hume.
3. Therefore, 'Good' and 'Evil' do not even come in to consideration.
B. G2 (Teleological Argument)
1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judicial (limited Beneficence, per Kant)
4. However, lacking knowledge of what purpose is being aimed at, this argument is purely inductive, therefore, there is no teleologic "proof".
C. G3 (Ontological: Based on Anselm and Scotus's arguments which hinge upon the supremacy of being and the inherent notion of quality and the superlative).
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnipresence
4. Omnibenevolent
5. Perfect

II. Evil
A. As Pain
1. Does pain exist?
2. If (1), is all pain evil?
3. Are their gradations of pain and evil?
B. As suffering
1. Suffering is a purely human phenomena; it is also a mental construct.
2. Does suffering exist? If so, is it just or unjust?
a. Theodicies - suffering makes us better; therefore, suffering is not evil.
b. If our duty is to obey the moral imperatives at all moments, then we can never have a surplus of positive morality.
i. Infinite Guilt
ii. Infinite Punishment (therefore, all suffering is deserved and not evil)
C. As imperfection
1. Notion of quality
2. Imperfection is an a priori concept and is self-evident.

III. (I) and (II)
A. If and only if (IC) then (IIC)
B. (IC5) stands in contradiction to (IIC)

IV. (IIC) and Kierkegaard
A. Man is not yet a Self
B. IFF (A), the Self is not yet created
C. Therefore, imperfection does not exist (Augustine already argues that evil does not exist; this concept simply builds upon his foundation).

V. IFF (IVC) then (IC) is not proven (the notion of quality is meaningless if imperfection does not exist)
A. No proof for (G1)
B. Therefore, (G2) is the only God concept that can be proven through reason.

Hence, no proven concepts of 'good' and 'evil'.

 

[NEO]

That's why it's called faith TRUT.

 

[gsvol]

GS, since you seem confused with regard to my notion of God, I will do my best to clarify:

I. God
A. G1 (Cosmological Argument)
1. Supernatural force with no other characteristics
2. To assign characteristics to this force, without the aid of reason, would be pure blasphemy according to Hume.
3. Therefore, 'Good' and 'Evil' do not even come in to consideration.
B. G2 (Teleological Argument)
1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judicial (limited Beneficence, per Kant)
4. However, lacking knowledge of what purpose is being aimed at, this argument is purely inductive, therefore, there is no teleologic "proof".
C. G3 (Ontological: Based on Anselm and Scotus's arguments which hinge upon the supremacy of being and the inherent notion of quality and the superlative).
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnipresence
4. Omnibenevolent
5. Perfect

II. Evil
A. As Pain
1. Does pain exist?
2. If (1), is all pain evil?
3. Are their gradations of pain and evil?
B. As suffering
1. Suffering is a purely human phenomena; it is also a mental construct.
2. Does suffering exist? If so, is it just or unjust?
a. Theodicies - suffering makes us better; therefore, suffering is not evil.
b. If our duty is to obey the moral imperatives at all moments, then we can never have a surplus of positive morality.
i. Infinite Guilt
ii. Infinite Punishment (therefore, all suffering is deserved and not evil)
C. As imperfection
1. Notion of quality
2. Imperfection is an a priori concept and is self-evident.

III. (I) and (II)
A. If and only if (IC) then (IIC)
B. (IC5) stands in contradiction to (IIC)

IV. (IIC) and Kierkegaard
A. Man is not yet a Self
B. IFF (A), the Self is not yet created
C. Therefore, imperfection does not exist (Augustine already argues that evil does not exist; this concept simply builds upon his foundation).

V. IFF (IVC) then (IC) is not proven (the notion of quality is meaningless if imperfection does not exist)
A. No proof for (G1)
B. Therefore, (G2) is the only God concept that can be proven through reason.

Hence, no proven concepts of 'good' and 'evil'.

Man would I ever hate to live in your head.

Did you write this all yourself?

I'm no fan of Hume, Kant or Kierkegaard.

I A starts out similar to Taoist thought then in B and C violates the whole concept or at least diverges radically from the thoughts attributed to Lao Tse.

II A touches on Budhist thought, which in my opinion only, was never meant to be more than philosophy and perhaps one that would lead away fron Hinduism.
(that's just my own opinion, I've never read anyone who wrote that.)

III A and B are both similar to Taoist thought.

IV Do you believe man is imbued with a soul?
(imbued might not be the best word to use)

V A Can you believe that He can and does to certain individuals? (or could you at least have an open mind to that possibility?)

V B I'm not sure that is true although some have made valiant efforts to do so.

Interesting read and I responded with my own thoughts, I believe in personal freedom, you are free to believe whatever you want as far as I'm concerned.

Have you thought of reading Christ the Eternal Tao by Hiermonk Damascene?

Sounds like something with which you would be interested.

 

[therealUT]

That's why it's called faith TRUT.

1. A thought experiment: If the most trustworthy person you know comes to you and says, "I saw a ghost" do you then take on a belief in ghosts?

2. Now, as to your statement, "that's why it's called faith", you are correct. I have not provided a proof, nor can a proof be provided, that G3 does not exist. I have simply demonstrated that G2 and G3 cannot be proven to exist; however, I have provided a proof that G3 cannot coexist with Evil and/or Imperfection.

3. If I have receive a personal, supernatural revelation (however this is to be received, since our perception only extends to the natural), then I can then internally justify a belief of G2 or G3. This revelation, though, can neither be justified externally nor can it have a transitive property (I cannot believe in existence of said God because someone else has a revelation, i.e. I cannot place revelatory authority in Scripture).

4. If you reject my conclusion in (3) in which I attack the revelatory authority of Scripture, did you also reject the hypothetical belief in ghosts from (1)? If you reject (1), deciding that the belief of the most trustworthy person you know is intransitive, then how do you accept the beliefs and the accounts of Scripture writers of whom you have never met?

 

[therealUT]

Man would I ever hate to live in your head.

Yet, you do.

Did you write this all yourself?

I did.

I'm no fan of Hume, Kant or Kierkegaard.

Are you a fan of any philosophers? There is very little I like in Kierkegaard's writing because most of the time he rejects reason and logic; however, his argument to reach his conclusion that "Man is not yet a Self" is valid and I find his premises sound and compelling.

I A starts out similar to Taoist thought then in B and C violates the whole concept or at least diverges radically from the thoughts attributed to Lao Tse.

I A-C covers the three main categories of philosophical proofs for the existence of God. They do evolve radically from G1 to G3.

II A touches on Budhist thought, which in my opinion only, was never meant to be more than philosophy and perhaps one that would lead away fron Hinduism.
(that's just my own opinion, I've never read anyone who wrote that.)

Have you read C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain? Lewis separates pain from suffering, as purely physical to purely mental. Since pain, according to Lewis, is purely physical it is also only momentary and non-quantitative. All the pain in the world is contained in a single pin prick. Suffering, on the other hand, is the collection of memories and anxiety surrounding that moment of pain.

III A and B are both similar to Taoist thought.

Even more similar to Kant's antinomies.

IV Do you believe man is imbued with a soul?
(imbued might not be the best word to use)

I believe that the Soul is the first actuality of Man. I cannot conceive of myself without Mind/Intellect (Aristotelian Soul).

V A Can you believe that He can and does to certain individuals? (or could you at least have an open mind to that possibility?)

This is addressed in my response to NEOCON. I believe He can; I do not believe He does (though, I am open to the possibility).

V B I'm not sure that is true although some have made valiant efforts to do so.

You cannot believe in G3 without believing in G1; you can believe in G1 without believing in G3, though. The proof for G1 though comes with no extra characteristics; the proof for G2 and G3 do. However, the proofs for G2 and G3 are not sound.

Interesting read and I responded with my own thoughts, I believe in personal freedom, you are free to believe whatever you want as far as I'm concerned.

Have you thought of reading Christ the Eternal Tao by Hiermonk Damascene?

Sounds like something with which you would be interested.

I will probably get to it someday. My intended Area of Specialty and my Area of Competence are Phil. Religion and Mil. Ethics, respectively.

 

[YorkVol]

One of my favorite "philosophers" . . .

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50

 

[Orangeslice13]

TRUT,
1) there is a God
2) I'm not Him.

The world according to OS13

 

[gsvol]

One of my favorite "philosophers" . . .

I think I've read all of Adam's books, starting with 'Hitchhikers Guide.'

'Restaurant at the End of the Universe' is probably my favorite.

Yet, you do.

And rent free too.

Can't beat that rate.

Let's say that I have some inkling of where you are in your head.
(after all you have done your best to elucidate that, I appreciate that.)

You say there does exist a 'true god', hence my question; what do you think of the possibility of communicating with Him (her or it)?

If this true god has not communicated anything to you, do you think it plausible that if you asked then you might receive an answer?

In other words do you think the possibility exists that this 'true god' has the ability to communicate with you on a personal one on one basis?

I did.

Very good but might I submit you draw somewhat from several previous works, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Are you a fan of any philosophers? There is very little I like in Kierkegaard's writing because most of the time he rejects reason and logic; however, his argument to reach his conclusion that "Man is not yet a Self" is valid and I find his premises sound and compelling.

Lao Tse most of all. (and of course Jesus if you want to call Him a philosopher.)

I like Socrates quite a bit but then the hemlock deal turns me off entirely, call it a fatal flaw.

If it had been me I would have accepted one of the many other offers he had from other city states and told Athens to kiss where the sun doesn't shine.

Diogines (sp?) is probably my second favorite of the Greeks, no fan of Aristotle.

(any comment on the legend of Asclepius?)

I don't care for most ot the German modern philosophers unless you want to call Jung a philosopher.

From an interview not long before he passed away:

Interviewer: 'Would you say you believe in God?'

Jung leaned back in his chair, took a draw on his pipe and replied; 'I would have to say no to that question because if I said yes that would imply that I think there is God, so no, I know there is God.'

Albert Einstein came out with some rather philosophical thoughts during his life.

I'll probably catch hell for this but Ronald Reagan doesn't get the credit he is due for some of his philosophical statements.

I A-C covers the three main categories of philosophical proofs for the existence of God. They do evolve radically from G1 to G3.

So do you believe there are three possible areas of knowledge?
IE:

1. Empirical
2. Experiential
3. Divine enlightenment

Have you read C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain? Lewis separates pain from suffering, as purely physical to purely mental. Since pain, according to Lewis, is purely physical it is also only momentary and non-quantitative. All the pain in the world is contained in a single pin prick. Suffering, on the other hand, is the collection of memories and anxiety surrounding that moment of pain.

I've read some of Lewis' works but I don't think I've read that one.

According the philosophy of gs; some love to cling to their pain and wallow in their suffering, the more fortunate, in one way or another, find how to rise above pain and suffering.

Even more similar to Kant's antinomies.

Have you read all of Lao Tse?

There is a fairly new interpretation (from the original Chinese) that includes a previously unpublished, uninterpreted 2nd part version of the oral tradition that had never before been written.

That second portion is unlike the previous work, it is a recount of the conversations between the sage and the young prince, a bit like Plato's dialogues.

May not mean anything at all but it is sure as hell thought provoking for any except the brain dead.

I believe that the Soul is the first actuality of Man. I cannot conceive of myself without Mind/Intellect (Aristotelian Soul).

Did that 'soul' exist before you were born and/or will it exist after you die.

In other words, does the spirit world exist?

This is addressed in my response to NEOCON. I believe He can; I do not believe He does (though, I am open to the possibility).

With me He has, on more than one occasion.

Do you dream vivid dreams? (and I'm not saying that all revelations and visions to me have come while I was sleeping but I will say that the most powerful dream that has strengthened my faith more than all others was within a dream, when I reached the extent of my faith and awoke, I didn't wake up, I returned to the dream I was dreaming before but when I woke up in the morning I remembered the dream within the dream, I will never forget it.)

You cannot believe in G3 without believing in G1; you can believe in G1 without believing in G3, though. The proof for G1 though comes with no extra characteristics; the proof for G2 and G3 do. However, the proofs for G2 and G3 are not sound.

KISS.

I will probably get to it someday. My intended Area of Specialty and my Area of Competence are Phil. Religion and Mil. Ethics, respectively.

Just as an avocation?

That's why it's called faith TRUT.

He could reduce all that to three words;

'I am lost.'

 

[YorkVol]

I also recommend Robert heinleins Stranger in a Strange Land.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

1. A thought experiment: If the most trustworthy person you know comes to you and says, "I saw a ghost" do you then take on a belief in ghosts?

This is my favorite argument against the faith-based arguments concerning the Biblical God.

 

[therealUT]

You say there does exist a 'true god', hence my question; what do you think of the possibility of communicating with Him (her or it)?

It is possible; it must take place in a supersensible manner, though.

If this true god has not communicated anything to you, do you think it plausible that if you asked then you might receive an answer?

Why would one ask?
How would one ask?

In other words do you think the possibility exists that this 'true god' has the ability to communicate with you on a personal one on one basis?

Indeed; hence, the supersensible notion of guilt.

Very good but might I submit you draw somewhat from several previous works, not that there is anything wrong with that.

I am not in the business of reinventing wheels. This argument is drawn from my understanding of Aristotle, the Upanishads, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, Augustine, Anselm, Scotus, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Lewis.

Lao Tse most of all. (and of course Jesus if you want to call Him a philosopher.)

The character called Jesus is a philosopher and moral teacher.

I like Socrates quite a bit but then the hemlock deal turns me off entirely, call it a fatal flaw.

If it had been me I would have accepted one of the many other offers he had from other city states and told Athens to kiss where the sun doesn't shine.

Diogines (sp?) is probably my second favorite of the Greeks, no fan of Aristotle.

(any comment on the legend of Asclepius?)

Aside from the handful of references to him in the Illiad, I have no further knowledge of Asclepius.

I don't care for most ot the German modern philosophers unless you want to call Jung a philosopher.

From an interview not long before he passed away:

Interviewer: 'Would you say you believe in God?'

Jung leaned back in his chair, took a draw on his pipe and replied; 'I would have to say no to that question because if I said yes that would imply that I think there is God, so no, I know there is God.'

I am one of the few who still hold on to the concept of knowledge as justified, true belief. To not believe in a God is to not know there is a God.

Albert Einstein came out with some rather philosophical thoughts during his life.

Einstein was a brilliant mathematician and physicist.

I'll probably catch hell for this but Ronald Reagan doesn't get the credit he is due for some of his philosophical statements.

Examples?

So do you believe there are three possible areas of knowledge?
IE:

1. Empirical
2. Experiential
3. Divine enlightenment

No.

I've read some of Lewis' works but I don't think I've read that one.

According the philosophy of gs; some love to cling to their pain and wallow in their suffering, the more fortunate, in one way or another, find how to rise above pain and suffering.

How felicitous for them.

Have you read all of Lao Tse?

There is a fairly new interpretation (from the original Chinese) that includes a previously unpublished, uninterpreted 2nd part version of the oral tradition that had never before been written.

That second portion is unlike the previous work, it is a recount of the conversations between the sage and the young prince, a bit like Plato's dialogues.

May not mean anything at all but it is sure as hell thought provoking for any except the brain dead.

I have never been that fascinated by Taoist, Buddhist, or Confucian pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-theological writers.

Did that 'soul' exist before you were born and/or will it exist after you die.

If it existed before I was born, I don't remember it; as to whether it will continue to exist after my body fails to perform its bodily functions, I do not know because I cannot predict the future.

In other words, does the spirit world exist?

I have no proof that there are any other spirits aside from my soul; my proof is internally a priori and self-evident and, therefore, it is intransitive and provides no proof for you.

With me He has, on more than one occasion.

Good for you.

Do you dream vivid dreams? (and I'm not saying that all revelations and visions to me have come while I was sleeping but I will say that the most powerful dream that has strengthened my faith more than all others was within a dream, when I reached the extent of my faith and awoke, I didn't wake up, I returned to the dream I was dreaming before but when I woke up in the morning I remembered the dream within the dream, I will never forget it.)

I've been on some wicked benders before, too.

KISS.

What was complicated about that?

Just as an avocation?

Can you clarify this question? I am not sure what it is you are asking that my hobby is.

He could reduce all that to three words;

'I am lost.'

Are you found?

 

[KiffinKiller]

I go to church because it is important to my girlfriend. I laugh quietly to myself as the priest recites his sermon, unknowingly, in the presence of a fallen angel.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You cannot believe in G3 without believing in G1; you can believe in G1 without believing in G3, though. The proof for G1 though comes with no extra characteristics; the proof for G2 and G3 do. However, the proofs for G2 and G3 are not sound.

Neither is the argument for G1.

 

[therealUT]

Neither is the argument for G1.

Unless you can conceive of a particle begetting and moving itself, you must admit of at least one supernatural force.

In trying to conceive this, though, you create and move the particle in your conception.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Unless you can conceive of a particle begetting and moving itself, you must admit of at least one supernatural force.

In trying to conceive this, though, you create and move the particle in your conception.

Are we talking quantum mechanics?

 

[golfballs]

:wacko:

 

[Orangeslice13]

Are we talking quantum mechanics?

I keep waiting on someone to yell ......



BINGO!!!

 

[therealUT]

Are we talking quantum mechanics?

No. Pure, non-empirical cognition.

 

[n_huffhines]

There is a God/Gods, and when the singularity happens, we will be Gods, too.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV#p/search/0/KSJGTCW5JbM

 

[PKT_VOL]

No. Pure, non-empirical cognition.

Please be more specific. Not quite sure what your getting at.

 

[therealUT]

Please be more specific. Not quite sure what your getting at.

Sorry, was in the middle of a human evolution seminar.

The only way that I can specify is that it is an a priori belief and conception that something cannot beget itself and that something cannot move itself.

There no manner of conceiving the converse; if science ever claimed to demonstrate said converse, it would be irrational to even accept such a demonstration on testimony (for me, this would even include testimony of the senses).

 

[PKT_VOL]

Sorry, was in the middle of a human evolution seminar.

The only way that I can specify is that it is an a priori belief and conception that something cannot beget itself and that something cannot move itself.

There no manner of conceiving the converse; if science ever claimed to demonstrate said converse, it would be irrational to even accept such a demonstration on testimony (for me, this would even include testimony of the senses).

I don't follow.

If looking at it from a strictly from an a priori stand point, there is nothing preventing a person from conceiving of an inanimate object begetting itself or moving itself. I assume we are talking about inanimate objects because life can obviously both reproduce and move itself. There is nothing about an inanimate object or particle which embodies the qualities of immobility or lack of reproduction. Inanimate just means non life, non organic. However, from experience we deduce, then ultimately infer that inanimate object both lack the ability to reproduce or move by themselves. This is a posteriori knowledge not a priori; nor does it restrict ones capacity to conceive of the opposite a priori if such qualities which are learned via experience are stricken or ignored by the mind.

Finally, I am not sure how this thought experiment contributes to proving your G1 argument.

 

[therealUT]

I don't follow.

If looking at it from a strictly from an a priori stand point, there is nothing preventing a person from conceiving of an inanimate object begetting itself or moving itself.

Of course there is; the simple attempt to conceive of something begetting itself is to cause said something to be begotten in your conception.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Of course there is; the simple attempt to conceive of something begetting itself is to cause said something to be begotten in your conception.

Again, what exactly are you getting at?

 

[therealUT]

Again, what exactly are you getting at?

Natural law, at its foundation, conforms to a priori reasoning. Therefore, the entire concept of self-creator, self-mover is beyond the realm of natural law; thus, it is supernatural.

G1 cannot be disproved; of course, G1 includes the possibility of monotheism, polytheism, and pantheism. That said, though, the admittance of a supernatural force is a must for any but the most rigorous solipsist.