Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[44Ronin]

YouTube - XTC-Dear God

Dear god, hope you got the letter and,
I pray you can make it better down here...
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer

 

[KFunk]

Well no, I would disagree with you. These are descriptions about heaven, they are not definitions. A definition will define what a words meaning is.

What is the difference between a description of the concept 'cat' and a definition of the concept 'cat'?

P.S. The way I have BoS set up (15 posts/page) we are now at 1000 pages. Massive.

 

[BradCube]

I'm not saying Jesus wasn't alive or isn’t the one true god, I'm saying Jesus is merely a prophet like so many others back then.

This seems logically contradictory to me. How can Jesus be the one true God whilst also being a mere prophet like so many others?

Single person’s belief that is shared by thousands, inspired to create a book of the beliefs and adventures of this particular prophet. Over the years the book has been past down, spread around and added to. Naming the book a bible is emphasizing that it is important. You could have just named it Jesus adventures?.

The bible contains both an Old and New Testament. The Old is compiled from books written before Jesus was born. The new is a compilation of books written after Jesus was born. It wouldn't make sense to call the bible "Jesus Adventures" because it deals with more than just Jesus.

Aside from this what does this issue of the perceived importance of the bible have to do with the argument? Surely importance alone is not sufficient to reveal truth?

Since it has inspired us to create the bible, we took down the beliefs as important ones.

Since what inspired us? Jesus? Why does inspiration necessitate importance?

Enforcing and applying the bibles rules and guidelines, thus we have created ourselves a higher control; higher being.

How does applying biblical rules to humanity lead to higher being? How does our obedience to rules in the bible have anything to do with being at all?

This can be changed in minor detail and adjusted to the common ethical beliefs of the age, as the bible has been changed over 9,000 times.

Could you please share a source for this claim of "over 9000 times"? As far as I am aware, current translations very accurately represent the earliest manuscripts available.

For we took down the beliefs we created a god,

How does our recording of events in scripture represent our creation of a God? The writers of these book didn't write these things down with the intention that they could create a god with their words. Rather they believed that they were representing and recording Gods actual interactions with the world.

We control the rules and guidelines therefore we are god.

Which rules are you referring to? Do you mean the ethical rules in bible that you say have been changed to suit current common beliefs? Even if this were true I don't see how this implies that we are god. Under your view of what the bible is, how does controlling man made rules and guidelines promote us to the state of gods?

The bible today follows around ethical beliefs.

How? Many things in the bible are directly opposed to current social standards regarding ethics - ie homosexuality, fornication etc.

People make their own decisions and outcomes.

Well, apart from a deterministic view, I think most would agree with you here. Still, what difference does this make to the case at hand?

Mysterious, wonderful, high above hell is also definitions of heaven, because no one alive has been there to make a definition.

Your confusing my point. I am making an ontological claim, not an epistemological one. No one knowing what heaven is like is not relevant. We are addressing what defines heaven, not how one comes to knowledge of that definition. Essentially my point is that you cannot use words such as "mysterious, wonderful, high above hell" as these could be used to describe a myriad of things. They do nothing to actually define what heaven is.

One could equally say that love, ice cream or even a human mind is "mysterious, wonderful, high above hell". These properties do not define heaven, because they go no way to isolating its meaning from other entities.

 

[KFunk]

As some help I've linked three of the most commonly used rules of inductive logic

modus ponens, modus tollens and hypothetical syllogism

Picky technicality: those are rules of deductive logic (in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise). Inductive logic involves things like probabilistic reasoning, generalisation (noting that universal/existential generalisation are deductive rules in predicate logic), and argument by analogy.

Aside from this whole issue, your logic doesn't follow to your conclusion. What you are arguing is essentially this:

1. The bible is an impression of God
2. We create a natural feeling and belonging for something better and bigger then ourselves (eg. the creation of the idea of heaven)
3. Therefore we as humans are our own God

This logic doesn't follow though. There is nothing that connects your premises to your conclusion.

The conclusion isn't logically connected because it is an example of inductive, rather than deductive, logic and so by nature is not airtight. The gist is similar to the argument which follows thus --> we can provide a psychological and sociological explanation of religion and religious belief through an understanding of the core anxieties and needs of humans - e.g. fear of death and the unknown, and a need for control and understanding - and how we tend to cope, both collectively and as individuals.

Once we have provided such a naturalistic explanation Occam's razor directs us to reject the existence of god (unless positive evidence for god can be provided) because the theory explains religion and religious belief without recourse to god, the metaphysical entity. The argument does not entail (deductively) the non-existence of god. Instead we reject god through inference to best explanation.

 

[BradCube]

What is the difference between a description of the concept 'cat' and a definition of the concept 'cat'?

Thinking hard and not getting far here...

A description of the concept "cat" can choose to include things which are both uniquely related to "cat" and also those things which are related to a myriad of things. There is no rule within description, that forces one to uniquely identify an entity.

A definition of the concept "cat" on the other hand should make some headway in uniquely identifying just a cat. While the definition can combine descriptions of that entity, the combination of those descriptions should be unique to the concept of "cat" only.

ie one could describe a cat by saying that it is "cuddly"

but one could not define a cat by saying that it is "cuddly"

My issue with Tatecress14's definition of heaven, is that it makes no headway in uniquely identifying heaven. It does not define it. It only lists some of the properties of heaven (as we typically understand it to be)

Now, you must know that I respect your own opinion in this area more than I do my own. So please, weigh in on whether my definition of definition is accurate

P.S. The way I have BoS set up (15 posts/page) we are now at 1000 pages. Massive.

Ha ha. Yes I have the same set-up. I was surprised no one had mentioned a thing

 

[BradCube]

Picky technicality: those are rules of deductive logic

What an embarrassing typo! I did know this, I promise. Thanks for the point out though, I've fixed up the original post now

The conclusion isn't logically connected because it is an example of inductive, rather than deductive, logic and so by nature is not airtight. The gist is similar to the argument which follows thus --> we can provide a psychological and sociological explanation of religion and religious belief through an understanding of the core anxieties and needs of humans - e.g. fear of death and the unknown, and a need for control and understanding - and how we tend to cope, both collectively and as individuals.

Once we have provided such a naturalistic explanation Occam's razor directs us to reject the existence of god (unless positive evidence for god can be provided) because the theory explains religion and religious belief without recourse to god, the metaphysical entity. The argument does not entail (deductively) the non-existence of god. Instead we reject god through inference to best explanation.

Such an argument I could at least understand, but Tatecress14's conclusion is not that God does not exist, rather it is that we are God.

Even under inductive logic this conclusion does not follow.

 

[KFunk]

Thinking hard and not getting far here...

A description of the concept "cat" can choose to include things which are both uniquely related to "cat" and also those things which are related to a myriad of things. There is no rule within description, that forces one to uniquely identify an entity.

A definition of the concept "cat" on the other hand should make some headway in uniquely identifying just a cat. While the definition can combine descriptions of that entity, the combination of those descriptions should be unique to the concept of "cat" only.

ie one could describe a cat by saying that it is "cuddly"

but one could not define a cat by saying that it is "cuddly"

My issue with Tatecress14's definition of heaven, is that it makes no headway in uniquely identifying heaven. It does not define it. It only lists some of the properties of heaven (as we typically understand it to be)

Now, you must know that I respect your own opinion in this area more than I do my own. So please, weigh in on whether my definition of definition is accurate


Ha ha. Yes I have the same set-up. I was surprised no one had mentioned a thing

It depends on the way in which you want to uniquely identify something - in particular, whether you are identifying them from amongst all possible objects (in which case you would need to be rigorous) or from amongst all objects in the world (over its history, say). In the latter case you could probably uniquely identify me by saying:

Male who plays bass (and has played rock, jazz, hip-hop and bluegrass), studies medicine and philosophy, has read the first chapter of Jaspers' General Psychopathology and owns a peacock-demon mask.

Note that despite being a (presumably) unique identifier (from amongst objects in the world) it is not a complete description. Running with this latter idea, one could probably say that a definition which uniquely identifies an object, in terms of all possible worlds/objects, is the same thing as a complete description.

This is largely what I was getting at. I appreciate the difference you were pushing, between definition and description, but they are potentially linked in interesting ways (depending on your prefered metaphysics).

 

[KFunk]

Such an argument I could at least understand, but Tatecress14's conclusion is not that God does not exist, rather it is that we are God.

Even under inductive logic this conclusion does not follow.

It depends on what it means to be God. If the concept is tied up with the origins of meaning and mythology then perhaps we are on Tatecress' account.

 

[BradCube]

Running with this latter idea, one could probably say that a definition which uniquely identifies an object, in terms of all possible worlds/objects, is the same thing as a complete description.

This is a beautiful way of putting it.

This is largely what I was getting at. I appreciate the difference you were pushing, between definition and description, but they are potentially linked in interesting ways (depending on your prefered metaphysics).

Oh without a doubt. I am pleased you called me on it for this reason. There definitely is a bit of overlap which is why confusion between the two could lead to fallacious reasoning.

It depends on what it means to be God. If the concept is tied up with the origins of meaning and mythology then perhaps we are on Tatecress' account.

Well possibly, but such a concept is hugely different from what most people are talking about in this thread when they refer to God. These two entities are worlds apart in their implications.

 

[KFunk]

Well possibly, but such a concept is hugely different from what most people are talking about in this thread when they refer to God. These two entities are worlds apart in their implications.

Aye, but note that if you wield the kind of argument I described above (where god/religion is explained away through appeal to psychology/sociology) then god is not an entity, but is rather an explanatory fiction, potentially admitting of odd descriptions like 'the origin of meaning and mythology'. Tenuous, I realise.

 

[BradCube]

Aye, but note that if you wield the kind of argument I described above (where god/religion is explained away through appeal to psychology/sociology) then god is not an entity, but is rather an explanatory fiction, potentially admitting of odd descriptions like 'the origin of meaning and mythology'. Tenuous, I realise.

Then I would propose that we change our argument to something more along the lines of:

1. We have psychological and social explanations for religious beliefs
2. There is no positive evidence for the existence of God (apart from those explained by psychology or sociology)
3. Therefore God does not exist
4. Therefore it is as if we are our own Gods.

I'm sure more steps could be added to make this final conclusion a little more clear, but I think you understand my point

 

[KFunk]

Then I would propose that we change our argument to something more along the lines of:

1. We have psychological and social explanations for religious beliefs
2. There is no positive evidence for the existence of God (apart from those explained by psychology or sociology)
3. Therefore God does not exist
4. Therefore it is as if we are our own Gods.

I'm sure more steps could be added to make this final conclusion a little more clear, but I think you understand my point

Aye, point taken. Though for rhetorical purposes "we are god" has a better Nietzschean ring to it.

Continental philosophy is slowly winning me over. Expect my coherence to approach the limit 'Iron' as time goes on.

 

[BradCube]

Continental philosophy is slowly winning me over. Expect my coherence to approach the limit 'Iron' as time goes on.

I don't mind that at all. I would always appreciate some input from the past on which we now stand - especially when considering how wider read you are than I

 

[Silver Persian]

Iron was looking for a protege in another thread - perhaps you could be the man for the job?

(that is if you are happy to mindlessly push Christian dogma. Which I suspect, deep down inside, you are.)

 

[gibbo153]

wow. Lentern voted yes.

Lentern get cho' ass in this thread and use your canny political oratory skills to convert the hordes.

 

[Ripe Hymen]

I think god does exist but i dont have faith in religion

 

[gibbo153]

nice choice of words. so you sort of believe in a more impersonal god-like being, more of a force than a distinct entity?

 

[SylviaB]

I think god does exist but i dont have faith in religion

Why come you believe that.

 

[Kendall_Gilroy]

some say edward cullen is god


but i know hes just an actor

 

[Beany_]

I don't believe in god..