What does it mean to say that GOD exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChainBreaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That the supernatural being described in the bible has some corresponding entity in reality?

This is assuming that big G god refers to the Christian one.
 
Do you mean the semantics of the sentence? Or the logical structure of it? That would probably be something like-

(∃x)(Gx) where Gx means “x is God”

Or we can paraphrase the sentence with other predicates - various descriptions that make up “x is God” and lay those out.

Or, do you mean, what are the implications of God existing? Or…
 
That the supernatural being described in the bible has some corresponding entity in reality?

This is assuming that big G god refers to the Christian one.
My focus is on the word “existence”. What is existence that one would say God is doing that. And if God is existing, how is that any different to a cow existing. Is God just a more powerful being among other beings.
 
Do you mean the semantics of the sentence? Or the logical structure of it? That would probably be something like-

(∃x)(Gx) where Gx means “x is God”

Or we can paraphrase the sentence with other predicates - various descriptions that make up “x is God” and lay those out.

Or, do you mean, what are the implications of God existing? Or…
My focus is on the concept of existence. When one says that God “exists”, is that the same thing as saying a cow exists.
 
Well I guess that depends on how you view ontology. Quine argued that the quantifier ∃ adequately captures the notion of existence and that’s all you need. To say that God exists, and a cow exists is just to say

(∃x)Gx and (∃x)Cx And if you take these two sentences to be true, then one is committed to the existence - I assume in our world, that there is at least one thing that is a God, and at least one thing that is a cow. The notion of existence would be exactly the same. He also used the phrase “identity is existence”, that if two things can be differentiated clearly then they are distinct things, and they exist. This seems plausible to me.
 
What does it mean to say that God exists?
Not everyone means the same thing (ex:Einstein probably didn’t mean the same thing as Billy Graham). . If you want to know I suggest asking the person making the statement and ask about the attributes of the God being referenced.
 
Not everyone means the same thing (ex:Einstein probably didn’t mean the same thing as Billy Graham). . If you want to know I suggest asking the person making the statement and ask about the attributes of the God being referenced.
I speaking more about the ontology of existence. When i say a Cow exists, does that mean the same thing as God exists.
 
Well I guess that depends on how you view ontology. Quine argued that the quantifier ∃ adequately captures the notion of existence and that’s all you need. To say that God exists, and a cow exists is just to say

(∃x)Gx and (∃x)Cx And if you take these two sentences to be true, then one is committed to the existence - I assume in our world, that there is at least one thing that is a God, and at least one thing that is a cow. The notion of existence would be exactly the same. He also used the phrase “identity is existence”, that if two things can be differentiated clearly then they are distinct things, and they exist. This seems plausible to me.
But that seems to suggest that both God and a cow are identical in the fact that they exist. This is to say that the nature of a cow is identical to the existence of a cow and that therefore it is to be a cow to exist.
 
What does it mean to say that God exists?
It means he actually exists. We deduce his existence by many arguments. His existence is also testified through Divine Revelation. So he exists, just like a cow exists, except we cannot see him, while the cow we do see. His exact nature is learned both through philosophy and Divine Revelation, in so far as it can be known.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Perhaps that is why when ask God responded:

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am
 
My focus is on the concept of existence. When one says that God “exists”, is that the same thing as saying a cow exists.
The concept God usually refers to a supreme being, someone that no greater can be thought of. The Christian God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, All Good Subsistent
Pure Act, Pure Being, Pure Spirit, infinite, eternal. People have false gods Whatever they worship in the universe that does not possess the qualities mentioned above.

A cow belongs to the species call animals, Is is physical, dependent, had a beginning, it is a sentient being, it will cease to be, it is finite, limited, it is subjected to change like all physical things.

To say that God exists, is to say God is Existence, to say a cow exists is to say a cow HAS existence, it is not subsistent ( meaning that it’s existence is dependent on the existence giver, God)
 
My focus is on the concept of existence. When one says that God “exists”, is that the same thing as saying a cow exists.
God exists “simply”, meaning he “is”, fully in “act”.
A cow is a mixture of act and potency in existence, existing as a cow formally from the moment of insemination, or conception, actualizing the full nature of a cow materially to match the formal reality. The fertilized egg is actually a cow, but not materially complete, not materially actual, yet. It seeks growth to equalize form with individual identity in its objective reality. All the time a cow, yet all the time moving to be a cow, eating, growing, giving birth, giving milk, winning a blue ribbon at the county fair, and chewing her cud.

We are like that also, seeking to live, and rationally, seeking to know everything (which means seeking to know God, which we must to fulfill our own formal actuality in our individual being).
 
But that seems to suggest that both God and a cow are identical in the fact that they exist. This is to say that the nature of a cow is identical to the existence of a cow and that therefore it is to be a cow to exist.
The cow and God would have different identity criterion, as shown in the existential strings shown above. Existence isn’t oftenough considered a property. Otherwise there would be a predicate “to exist”. Instead, existence is described by the quantifier. Or, so the particular theory goes.
 
It means he actually exists.
What is your definition?
We deduce his existence by many arguments.
We can deduce a conscious being exist. It exist by very fact objectively.
His existence is also testified through Divine Revelation.
Yeah, I declare that I am God too. In fact I have very good reason for it too: I am a consciousness and God being consciousness cannot create consciousness since knowledge is utility of consciousness.
So he exists, just like a cow exists, except we cannot see him, while the cow we do see.
He is dead.
His exact nature is learned both through philosophy and Divine Revelation, in so far as it can be known.

Pax
Linus2nd
Both are wrong.
 
What is your definition?

We can deduce a conscious being exist. It exist by very fact objectively.

Yeah, I declare that I am God too. In fact I have very good reason for it too: I am a consciousness and God being consciousness cannot create consciousness since knowledge is utility of consciousness.

He is dead.

Both are wrong.
When you shed your mortal coil you will find out I am correct :D.

Linus2nd
 
I am consciousness. Who care for body? Jesus apparently died too.
No, you are conscious. " Consciousness " is not a proper noun. Yes, Jesus died. But three days later he rose from the dead. You will rise from the dead too on the day of Judgment. And so will all men. But the moment you die, you will stand before God to give an accounting of your life. You see, it life is not just a philosophical game, it has eternal consequences.

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top