We cannot deduce the existence of God

[Linusthe2nd]

Deduction would be mine. :bounce:

Well, that is progress :clapping:

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Well, that is progress :clapping:

Linus2nd

I like theology too.

 

[catholictiger]

1. Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
2. Awareness occurs in consciousness
3. Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
4. From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
5. We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
6. We cannot deduce the existence of God

Just because we don’t experience God doesn’t mean we can’t deduce the existence of God.

I didn’t experience what lead to my conception but I know it happened.

Every argument for God’s existence takes our experience and logically argues to the existence of God.

 

[seagal]

Just because we don’t experience God doesn’t mean we can’t deduce the existence of God.
**
I didn’t experience what lead to my conception but I know it happened.
**
Every argument for God’s existence takes our experience and logically argues to the existence of God.

I think that’s my favourite line

 

[Bahman]

Just because we don’t experience God doesn’t mean we can’t deduce the existence of God.

So you mean that we are cognitively open to know without experiencing?

I didn’t experience what lead to my conception but I know it happened.

How?

Every argument for God’s existence takes our experience and logically argues to the existence of God.

There exist a line in our mind between what we are convinced to be true and false, however there is not such line in objective reality hence we can never be sure about which side we are unless experience together with the right judgment takes us closer and closer to subject matter.

 

[Ignatius]

So you mean that we are cognitively open to know without experiencing?

Yes, as many here have pointed out. You say that we cannot deduce the existence of God, but the problem is that it has already been done many times as is almost universally known, by Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.

If you haven’t even read the deductive reasoning by Aristotle, Plato, for the existence of God, good scholarship would dictate that would be the first step your study of the matter.

As I pointed out before, If you expect to be taken seriously, that is where you need to start.

 

[Ignatius]

So you mean that we are cognitively open to know without experiencing?

Yes, as many here have pointed out. You say that we cannot deduce the existence of God, but the problem is that it has already been done many times as is almost universally known, by Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.

If you haven’t even read the deductive reasoning by Aristotle, Plato, for the existence of God, good scholarship would dictate that would be the first step your study of the matter.

As I pointed out before, If you expect to be taken seriously, that is where you need to start. You might want to start with Plato as it is the simpler presentation.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, as many here have pointed out. You say that we cannot deduce the existence of God, but the problem is that it has already been done many times as is almost universally known, by Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.

If you haven’t even read the deductive reasoning by Aristotle, Plato, for the existence of God, good scholarship would dictate that would be the first step your study of the matter.

As I pointed out before, If you expect to be taken seriously, that is where you need to start. You might want to start with Plato as it is the simpler presentation.

I read about Plato, Aristotle and Thomas and non of them made sense to me. I am open to discuss them in different thread if you wish. Would you open another thread so I can join you there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I read about Plato, Aristotle and Thomas and non of them made sense to me. I am open to discuss them in different thread if you wish. Would you open another thread so I can join you there.

Who have you read that has made sense to you?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Who have you read that has made sense to you?

Linus2nd

I have discuss one of Thomas’s proof with you and I had issues with his proof. I also read Plato proof which was not sounding at all. He asked me a few times to read those proof and I offer to engage him if s/he willing to open a thread but no attempt on his side.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes, as many here have pointed out. You say that we cannot deduce the existence of God, but the problem is that it has already been done many times as is almost universally known, by Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.

If you haven’t even read the deductive reasoning by Aristotle, Plato, for the existence of God, good scholarship would dictate that would be the first step your study of the matter.

As I pointed out before, If you expect to be taken seriously, that is where you need to start. You might want to start with Plato as it is the simpler presentation.

Has “Plato, Aristotle and the many others” deduced that God Is a Trinity?

Has “Plato, Aristotle and the many others” deduced that God Is a Being of Love?

As far as “Plato, Aristotle and the many others” deducing that there is a God or god, just what is their “definition” of God?

Just because someone can come up with an argument for or a deduction for does NOT mean that it is true, just means that in their mind they have come to the conclusion that they have come to.

I, personally believe, that no one can “prove” that God Is except for God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have discuss one of Thomas’s proof with you and I had issues with his proof. I also read Plato proof which was not sounding at all. He asked me a few times to read those proof and I offer to engage him if s/he willing to open a thread but no attempt on his side.

That was not the question!

Linus2nd

 

[RGCheek]

So lets see if we could agree on the fact that what we call reality does not exist at the moment of experience:

First, Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist as awareness in consciousness. This means that S cannot objectively exist when it is experienced. In simple word, how it could be objectively there when it is inside your mind.

Second, Could God be experienced? No, since by definition God is pure existence meaning that it does always exist hence and because of (First) we cannot experience what always exist.

Does pi exist? or Sine? or love? or order, holiness, a googleplex, beauty, sanity, Truth, or Good?

MOST things are not experienced by direct perception but only through reference by other people or in ones mind alone. And yet these things are still believed to exist.

I have never been to Moscow and yet a presume it does exist, and am quite certain of it, in fact, and would bet all I owned it is there.

I have never seen a sine, but only understand what it is mathematically and yet it exists, fully capable of being perceived by people any time and anywhere with the correct instruments.

So I think point 5) ‘We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience’ is categorically false.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12636118:

Yes, as many here have pointed out. You say that we cannot deduce the existence of God, but the problem is that it has already been done many times as is almost universally known, by Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.

If you haven’t even read the deductive reasoning by Aristotle, Plato, for the existence of God, good scholarship would dictate that would be the first step your study of the matter.

As I pointed out before, If you expect to be taken seriously, that is where you need to start. You might want to start with Plato as it is the simpler presentation.

I read about Plato, Aristotle . . . . and non of them made sense to me. .

The title of this thread states that the existence of God cannot be deduced. Innumerable people down through the ages have done so thus disproving the title contention.

If you are unable to understand Plato, Aristotle, etc. then it is clear that you need to do additional Scholarship on the subject in order to make your case against them.

 

[Ignatius]

The title of this thread states that the existence of God cannot be deduced. Innumerable people down through the ages have done so thus disproving the title contention.

If one is unable to understand Plato, Aristotle, etc. then it is clear that they need to do additional Scholarship on the subject in order to make your case against them.

Determining whether something is knowable by deductive reasoning (such as the Title referenced contention) requires the use of sound epistemological principles and practices. It seems that perhaps the OP would benefit by gaining some grounding in the study of how knowledge is acquired and how sound epistemology is performed. Especially not section 2.3 on Internal vs External knowledge and the property of Luminosity obtained by introspection and section 4.4 **Reason **which explains how can be determined and justified solely by the use of reason.

Here is a brief synopses on determining what is reliably knowable:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

 

[Bahman]

Determining whether something is knowable by deductive reasoning (such as the Title referenced contention) requires the use of sound epistemological principles and practices. It seems that perhaps the OP would benefit by gaining some grounding in the study of how knowledge is acquired and how sound epistemology is performed.

Here is a brief synopses on determining what is reliably knowable:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
B) There exist a proof for existence/absence of God

I hold (A) in one hand and (B) in another hand. Which one does it weight higher in your opinion?

Either, they weight equal which means that epistemology is not about knowledge’s moral Justice, so I stop arguing for the rest of my life, since any preposition there will be no measure for rightness of anything.

Or, (A) weights less than (B). This means (B) is wrong.

Or (A) weights higher than (B). I don’t think so.

 

[RGCheek]

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
B) There exist a proof for existence/absence of God

I hold (A) in one hand and (B) in another hand. Which one does it weight higher in your opinion?

Either, they weight equal which means that epistemology is not about knowledge’s moral Justice, so I stop arguing for the rest of my life, since any preposition there will be no measure for rightness of anything.

Or, (A) weights less than (B). This means (B) is wrong.

Or (A) weights higher than (B). I don’t think so.

Interesting, theology via kitchen weight scales.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I am trying to say is that things exist in absence of experience and does not exist when they are experienced.

This too is a violation of the principle of contradiction.

Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist in consciousness.

This statement is absolutely incoherent. Do you ever proof read what you write. If you cannot express your thoughts coherently, how in the world do you expect to make an argument, let alone one that can be understood? We have been more than patient, now it is high time you start paying more attention to what you are saying!!!

In simple word, past has to die because it has to be replace with future. We only experience what was there and it is not there at the moment, namely “now”.

So?

If you will only express your thoughts clearly, I will gladly tell you.

It does follow. Things does not exist there when they appear as awareness in consciousness considering the first argument.

Again, this statement is incoherent. It makes no sense. Why not just get away from your symbolic logic and just make simple declarative statements.

God in another hand is pure existence hence it cannot be experienced.

That has nothing to do with whether or not we can deduce his existence from the things he has made. You do realize that for 1,500 years philosophers and theologians and the Catholic Church have disagreed with this statement. In fact it has been Dogmatically Defined by the Catholic Church that we can know of the existence of a personal God through the works he has made.

What do you mean?

Your O.P. :
" 1) Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
2) Awareness occurs in consciousness
3) Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
4) From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
5) We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
6) We cannot deduce the existence of God "

I said this in response to your O.P.

1. This is a violation of the principle of contradiction. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way.
2. Correct
3. True
4. Cannot be deduced from 1, 2, or 3 either singly or in some combination.
5. True but this has nothng to do with the previous false deductions.
6. False for all the above reasons.

Lets see if we could agree on (1) and (4) since you agree with (2), (3) and (5).

Wrong. I agreed that ’ 5 ’ was true but that it had nothing to do with points 1-4 of your O.P.
So your O.P. is false and poorly constructed. You should just drop it.

Linus2nd

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12643971:

Determining whether something is knowable by deductive reasoning (such as the Title referenced contention) requires the use of sound epistemological principles and practices. It seems that perhaps the OP would benefit by gaining some grounding in the study of how knowledge is acquired and how sound epistemology is performed. Especially not section 2.3 on Internal vs External knowledge and the property of Luminosity

obtained by introspection and section 4.4 **Reason **which explains how can be determined and justified solely by the use of reason.

Here is a brief synopses on determining what is reliably knowable:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

A) We cannot deduce the existence of God
B) There exist a proof for existence/absence of God

I hold (A) in one hand and (B) in another hand. .

Citing a specious formula and stating that the existence of God cannot be deduced is fallacious in the face of the fact that Innumerable, credible people down through the ages have done so thus disproving the title contention.

If the argument that one cannot deduce the existence of God is to be taken as a serious contention, then a point by point discussion of Plato, Aristotle, and the many others who have done so must be presented.

It is clear that there is a need on your part to do additional Scholarship on the subject in order to make your case against them.

I would suggest a study of sound epistemology (See link above) would be a good starting point to establish a foundation prior to starting your study of Plato and Aristotle.

 

[Bahman]

This too is a violation of the principle of contradiction.

This is very correct. It is necessary if you accept the next argument.

This statement is absolutely incoherent. Do you ever proof read what you write. If you cannot express your thoughts coherently, how in the world do you expect to make an argument, let alone one that can be understood? We have been more than patient, now it is high time you start paying more attention to what you are saying!!!

This is what I quote and I am 100% sure about it: *“Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist in consciousness.” *

So?

Hence previous argument is correct.

If you will only express your thoughts clearly, I will gladly tell you.

Lets see if we could agree on my argument, two comments before, because that is the core argument.

Again, this statement is incoherent. It makes no sense. Why not just get away from your symbolic logic and just make simple declarative statements.

It makes sense. Let me help you to visualize it. Consider a triangle with the left node as past, right node as future, and top node as awareness of past. I can draw a figure if you wish. As you see there is no awareness of past at the moment where past exist, absence of experience, and there is nothing exist at the moment of experience so called now.

That has nothing to do with whether or not we can deduce his existence from the things he has made. You do realize that for 1,500 years philosophers and theologians and the Catholic Church have disagreed with this statement. In fact it has been Dogmatically Defined by the Catholic Church that we can know of the existence of a personal God through the works he has made.

It does. What are talking about experiencing God. Please read previous comment.

Your O.P. :
" 1) Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
2) Awareness occurs in consciousness
3) Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
4) From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
5) We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
6) We cannot deduce the existence of God "

I said this in response to your O.P.

1. This is a violation of the principle of contradiction. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way.
2. Correct
3. True
4. Cannot be deduced from 1, 2, or 3 either singly or in some combination.
5. True but this has nothng to do with the previous false deductions.
6. False for all the above reasons.

1. I disagree, please read previous comments
2. Good
3. Good
4. Yes it can. In simple word, the moment of experience is the absence of existence. God is pure existence hence it cannot be absent, hence it cannot be experienced.
5. Good
6. You mean (1) and (4)? But, I answered them.

Wrong. I agreed that ’ 5 ’ was true but that it had nothing to do with points 1-4 of your O.P.
So your O.P. is false and poorly constructed. You should just drop it.

Linus2nd

Why? We are just left with (1) and (4) only, hence the argument is correct if I can convince you that (1) and (4) are correct.