Evidence for god or gods?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tony12356
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AgnosticBoy said:
I thought you were referring to “god” in a generic sense because the thread title says “god” or “gods”. And if you were referring to god in that sense then I’d agree with your approach because there are many different concepts of a God. Outside of Western philosophy (god as necessary being, etc), I don’t see why a god being can’t simply be a highly powerful and advanced being without the superlative baggage of omnipotent or omniscience.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Generally I reject that “western philosophical” definition of god. To say that “god is a necessary being…” is making the assumption that god exists. For example, I could define fairies as a small flying anthropomorphic being that has to exist. Its a dishonest definition that makes the claim that x needs to exist or does exist.

I try to define god as a supreme being or deity. Yes, if you wanted to define that as something that is superior than humans, then I guess that could be true. The issue that I’m noticing is finding a definition that works. Usually there are three definitions that I see.
  1. something that people call their god, but doesn’t have any qualities that most gods have. ( Greek gods, Abram religions, and many more.)
  2. God is that which created the universe or is the necessary being.
  3. God is the traditional gods that we think of ( Greek gods, Abram religions, and many more.)
 
tony12356 said:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Generally I reject that “western philosophical” definition of god. To say that “god is a necessary being…” is making the assumption that god exists. For example, I could define fairies as a small flying anthropomorphic being that has to exist. Its a dishonest definition that makes the claim that x needs to exist or does exist.
Click to expand...
So you are making the essential non-essential by not accepting that the existence in which you live is created?

So, how was the fly in which your nonexistent being is dreamed created?
How does that fly rationalize the Platonic forms or extend them to his other speck’cial friends in Socratic ascendancy?
 
mkoopman said:
So you are making the essential non-essential by not accepting that the existence in which you live is created?

So, how was the fly in which your nonexistent being is dreamed created?
How does that fly rationalize the Platonic forms or extend them to his other speck’cial friends in Socratic ascendancy?
Click to expand...
What?
 
tony12356 said:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Generally I reject that “western philosophical” definition of god. To say that “god is a necessary being…” is making the assumption that god exists. For example, I could define fairies as a small flying anthropomorphic being that has to exist. Its a dishonest definition that makes the claim that x needs to exist or does exist.

I try to define god as a supreme being or deity. Yes, if you wanted to define that as something that is superior than humans, then I guess that could be true. The issue that I’m noticing is finding a definition that works. Usually there are three definitions that I see.
  1. something that people call their god, but doesn’t have any qualities that most gods have. ( Greek gods, Abram religions, and many more.)
  2. God is that which created the universe or is the necessary being.
  3. God is the traditional gods that we think of ( Greek gods, Abram religions, and many more.)
Click to expand...
Yes, generally I define god as a higher being. The 3 definitions you gave in your last post are a good way of categorizing the different concepts of gods. I’m open to all, some, or none of those 3 options existing, but I also think any rational inquiry should include all of these options, and perhaps the one easier to accept or start with will be the option with the less philosophical/theological baggage.
 
mkoopman said:
Your former claim is to deny that you exist in a concrete reality.

The fly’s dream is the usual coinage for the surreal reality - to cleverly avoid a Creator, not.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. My former claim was that by assuming something has to exist and making that the definition, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
AgnosticBoy said:
Yes, generally I define god as a higher being. The 3 definitions you gave in your last post are a good way of categorizing the different concepts of gods. I’m open to all, some, or none of those 3 options existing, but I also think any rational inquiry should include all of these options, and perhaps the one easier to accept or start with will be the option with the less philosophical/theological baggage.
Click to expand...
Thanks. While I do accept two of the definitions, the middle definition is something I disagree with using. The second definition is something that I see people using to sneak in other terms. For example, they might say that god is whatever caused the universe to exist, but then say that this god is all knowing and loves you… I find it intellectually dishonest, because many people who claim that is their definition of god, don’t actually view their god as just having that one quality or attribute. Yes, there may be something that started the universe, but why call that god. It seems to throw the unnecessary baggage onto that concept.
 
tony12356 said:
No, it doesn’t. My former claim was that by assuming something has to exist and making that the definition, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between describing a thing and defining a thing.
So there’s nothing intellectually dishonest about describing a necessary being/thing as “necessary”.
 
Lion_IRC said:
There’s a difference between describing a thing and defining a thing.
So there’s nothing intellectually dishonest about describing a necessary being/thing as “necessary”.
Click to expand...
Sorry, let me be clear on this. What I’m talking about is when people provide a definition about x and then at the end of that definition add that x must exist. My earlier example was fairies.
fairies are a small flying anthropomorphic being that has to exist. Its a dishonest definition that makes the claim that x needs to exist or does exist.

I hope that clears things up. You can also see what I said above. I mentioned how people will provide a definition then add more to that definition.
 
A thing which is - by definition - necessary cannot have its own ‘necessity’ added on as an afterthought or supplementary part of its definition.

A maximally great being for example cannot ‘be’ such unless it actually exists.

Being (from the verb “to be”) is a necessary part of the definition of an extant thing.
 
Thom18 said:
Because I’ve replied to so many of these already: please use the search function. There’s a thread asking this same question a week or so old.
Click to expand...
I guess we can also start asking if there’s any disproof or evidence against God’s existence, or even for a generic god or higher being(s).
 
Lion_IRC said:
There’s a difference between describing a thing and defining a thing.
So there’s nothing intellectually dishonest about describing a necessary being/thing as “necessary”.
Click to expand...
It’s a tautology describing something by using its definition. If I say that I am imagining an object which reflects light corresponding to a wavelength of 480nm, it is then pulling a semantic fast one to say that therefore this car must be blue.

It only must be blue if you define it as such in the first place. You can’t use it as the next step in an argument. It’s the same step. At least a circular argument heads off somewhere before getting back to the start. You have gone nowhere.
 
Science is based on the principle of causality. Uncaused microscopic events occur but they presuppose the existence of the universe. It follows that the universe cannot have always existed or created itself. Therefore there must be a First Cause unknown to science which has created everything with greater insight and power than anything we have ever experienced.
 
Lion_IRC said:
There’s a difference between describing a thing and defining a thing.
So there’s nothing intellectually dishonest about describing a necessary being/thing as “necessary”.
Click to expand...
👍 Indeed. A being is either necessary or unnecessary unless we have invented necessity and the basic principle of scientific explanation. 🤷
 
tonyrey said:
Science is based on the principle of causality. Uncaused microscopic events occur but they presuppose the existence of the universe. It follows that the universe cannot have always existed or created itself. Therefore there must be a First Cause unknown to science which has created everything with greater insight and power than anything we have ever experienced.
Click to expand...
Why must it logically have “greater insight and power”? It might have different power and zero insight, as for example a Multiverse.

rossum
 
Lion_IRC said:
A thing which is - by definition - necessary cannot have its own ‘necessity’ added on as an afterthought or supplementary part of its definition.

A maximally great being for example cannot ‘be’ such unless it actually exists.

Being (from the verb “to be”) is a necessary part of the definition of an extant thing.
Click to expand...
It is unnecessary to invoke a “maximally great being”. Our starting point is the principle of causality without which science wouldn’t exist. An infinite regress of causes is generally accepted as an unscientific and unsatisfactory explanation. It follows that there is a First Cause, i.e. a Source of Power which cannot be inferior to created beings.
 
rossum said:
Why must it logically have “greater insight and power”? It might have different power and zero insight, as for example a Multiverse.

rossum
Click to expand...
Even a multiverse requires explanation. You are just postponing the inevitable consequence that the ultimate Cause cannot have less power or less insight than the effects. Otherwise it would be an inadequate explanation.
 
Bradski said:
It’s a tautology describing something by using its definition. If I say that I am imagining an object which reflects light corresponding to a wavelength of 480nm, it is then pulling a semantic fast one to say that therefore this car must be blue.

It only must be blue if you define it as such in the first place. You can’t use it as the next step in an argument. It’s the same step. At least a circular argument heads off somewhere before getting back to the start. You have gone nowhere.
Click to expand...
You are and stay nowhere if you reject the principle of causality!
 
AgnosticBoy said:
I guess we can also start asking if there’s any disproof or evidence against God’s existence, or even for a generic god or higher being(s).
Click to expand...
The alternative is to reject the principle of causality and live in never-never land! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top