So far, there are basically two arguments in the history of Western logic for God's existence: Ontological-type arguments and cosmological-type arguments. An argument of the ontological sort will establish God's existence on the basis of his existential stickiness, i.e.: There can only be one necessary being, so if you can imagine a necessary being, you must imagine the necessary being, and thus prove God exists; because whatever we can imagine is not nothing. An argument of the cosmological sort will establish God's existence on the basis of his explanatory priority, i.e.: Everything in motion is explained by something prior to the motion, and the cosmos is all in motion, so there must be something prior to the whole cosmos which organized it. These two arguments proceed from altogether different premises to altogether different conclusions, but they appear to describe the same being. Perhaps there is some way to combine these two arguments and in so doing explain the one object more thoroughly? I have some ideas about this, but I'd like you all to write something first.
Logic itself is a created thing, perhaps more powerful and real even than physical matter, but created nonetheless. Therefore skeptics are correct that all logical arguments for God are inherently and hopelessly circular. By nature of being so utterly prior to any dependency, there can be no satisfying a priori logical argument for God even from the most abstract metaphysical principles. You have to either just accept the existence of God as a tautology, or live and die in denial.
Metaphysical arguments are good for at least two things: demonstrating the self-consistency of God's existence ex post facto, and soothing the neuroses of intelligent men who need a more sophisticated body of faith than their intellectual inferiors. These are both worthy outcomes but very disappointing if one intended to establish the existence of God via pure reason, which is an act of sheer hubris that ought to teach one a lesson when he fails at the task.
(10-15-2023, 04:44 PM)Handi Wrote: [ -> ]Logic itself is a created thing, perhaps more powerful and real even than physical matter, but created nonetheless. Therefore skeptics are correct that all logical arguments for God are inherently and hopelessly circular. By nature of being so utterly prior to any dependency, there can be no satisfying a priori logical argument for God even from the most abstract metaphysical principles. You have to either just accept the existence of God as a tautology, or live and die in denial.
I don't know what leads you to believe that "God's existence is a tautology" is unprovable or something. In fact it's very easy to prove that a necessary being exists in all possible worlds, which means that God exists no matter what exists, which means that his existence is a tautology.
"Metaphysical arguments are good for at least two things: demonstrating the self-consistency of God's existence ex post facto, and soothing the neuroses of intelligent men who need a more sophisticated body of faith than their intellectual inferiors. These are both worthy outcomes but very disappointing if one intended to establish the existence of God via pure reason, which is an act of sheer hubris that ought to teach one a lesson when he fails at the task."
To say that proving "something exists which created everything" or "something exists in all possible worlds" is impious is basically to misunderstand what a proof/argument consists in.
The ontological argument places a lower bound on God's nature as an imagined concept in some human minds.
The cosmological argument places a lower bound on God's nature as something that caused the universe to be created.
I consider both of these proofs to be correct but I don't think they make very strong claims. God could be a mindless force of nature existing outside the observable universe, entirely indifferent to everything. Stronger claims about God's nature require arguments such as "humanity must have some purpose", "humanity must have been created with intent", or dogmatic assertions, none of which can be proven in such a rigorous way and I don't think they're true.
It doesn't particularly matter. If one wants to say there is no God, they will still believe in things happening in "mysterious" ways such as the "we are in a simulation" types. If one says that there is God, they will do the same. You will get similar thinking from both, and no greater quality in either direction. To borrow a religious phrase: "It is a trap for fools."
(10-15-2023, 11:39 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't particularly matter. If one wants to say there is no God, they will still believe in things happening in "mysterious" ways such as the "we are in a simulation" types. If one says that there is God, they will do the same. You will get similar thinking from both, and no greater quality in either direction. To borrow a religious phrase: "It is a trap for fools."
You sound uninterested in proving whether or not God exists, you sound interested in motivating something like "the religious worldview" instead. But "the religious worldview" doesn't correspond to any one sentence which we could prove/conclude.
(10-15-2023, 09:42 PM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]The ontological argument places a lower bound on God's nature as an imagined concept in some human minds.
The cosmological argument places a lower bound on God's nature as something that caused the universe to be created.
I consider both of these proofs to be correct but I don't think they make very strong claims. God could be a mindless force of nature existing outside the observable universe, entirely indifferent to everything. Stronger claims about God's nature require arguments such as "humanity must have some purpose", "humanity must have been created with intent", or dogmatic assertions, none of which can be proven in such a rigorous way and I don't think they're true.
But of course, whatever we mean by "mindless force of nature outside the observable universe" is constrained by these classical arguments. If such a mindless force can't be all-good, then it's incompatible with certain ontological arguments; if it can't be the cause of everything, then it's incompatible with cosmological arguments. To demonstrate (or disprove) either of these inconsistencies would help us understand the full character of the ontological and cosmological arguments. I'm sure something can be proven about pious (but not necessarily theistic) sentences like "humanity exists for a reason."
All such arguments are sophistry. They prove, if they prove anything, something that is not God, but only has some of his basic attributes. The rest of his attributes are filled in by hope, or cope. The only argument that can prove the existence of an entire god, and not merely a "causally necessary big-thingy" or whatever, is the empirical argument: people attest to seeing God and having experiences with him all the time. Yet, they do not attest this of one only, but multiple gods. This is the Templist argument for polytheism.
(10-16-2023, 05:00 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ]All such arguments are sophistry. They prove, if they prove anything, something that is not God, but only has some of his basic attributes. The rest of his attributes are filled in by hope, or cope. The only argument that can prove the existence of an entire god, and not merely a "causally necessary big-thingy" or whatever, is the empirical argument: people attest to seeing God and having experiences with him all the time. Yet, they do not attest this of one only, but multiple gods. This is the Templist argument for polytheism.
So God isn't the cause of everything or the greatest possible being?
(10-16-2023, 05:59 PM)astrolabeabelard Wrote: [ -> ]So God isn't the cause of everything or the greatest possible being?
What something is partially is not what it is entirely. The fallacy implicit in the motivation for this question is the same fallacy that is committed by the ontological arguers and the cosmological arguers.
A partial proof of God is no more a proof of God than proof of a refrigerator is to a house.
(10-16-2023, 06:13 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2023, 05:59 PM)astrolabeabelard Wrote: [ -> ]So God isn't the cause of everything or the greatest possible being?
What something is partially is not what it is entirely. The fallacy implicit in the motivation for this question is the same fallacy that is committed by the ontological arguers and the cosmological arguers.
A partial proof of God is no more a proof of God than proof of a refrigerator is to a house.
Is it just arguing that you don't like, or arguing about God's existence?
(10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that God has a number of characteristics.
Omniscience, omnipresence, sentience, omnipotence, creator of the universe.
And, the cosmological arguer will prove: creator of the universe.
And say, THEREFORE IS YOUR GOD, HALLELUJAH.
But if God is the things aforementioned, he is not just creator of the universe, and is not proved by it.
By analogy, you are: six feet tall, descended from your dad, blue eyed.
And if I prove: so and so is six feet tall.
That doesn't mean he is you. You may say, "but if I am the only six foot tall person, then he must be", but that determination requires that we already know who you are and that you exist, as it is a question of locality and not existence. As far as existence is concerned, we need to find all of your specific qualities, in order to prove that someone defined by all of your qualities exists.
Now you may wish to redefine God as only "creator of the universe". You can do that. If only anyone had the discipline to actually stand by that redefinition. But there is no actual point to initiate such a redefinition unless one wants to immediately equivocate, and associate "mere creator" with "big sky dad", so that is what always happens.
I have seen this also from the Neo-Platonists concerning the pagan gods. The pagan gods are anthropomorphic, sentient, powerful, shape shifters, archetypal, etc. They find "a set of multiple irreducible Platonic forms from which all concepts spring", and say, HALLELUJAH, THERE ARE THE GODS. That case is even more egregious, because the pagan gods are not defined by being irreducible Platonic forms at all, nor does this imply the rest of their traits.
(10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2023, 05:32 AM)astrolabeabelard Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2023, 06:13 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ]What something is partially is not what it is entirely. The fallacy implicit in the motivation for this question is the same fallacy that is committed by the ontological arguers and the cosmological arguers.
A partial proof of God is no more a proof of God than proof of a refrigerator is to a house.
Is it just arguing that you don't like, or arguing about God's existence?
He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
The real question about the being of God is epistemological and it's most interesting as praxis.
What do you want from a proof astrolabeabelard?
What do you want to know? Probably whatever you can prove. I just leave the premises for later. Certainly, whatever we think we know about God we must also prove, no?
(10-18-2023, 06:52 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that God has a number of characteristics.
Omniscience, omnipresence, sentience, omnipotence, creator of the universe.
And, the cosmological arguer will prove: creator of the universe.
And say, THEREFORE IS YOUR GOD, HALLELUJAH.
Those are popular ideas of what makes God to be God, but philosophers know that God essentially has no nature—there is nothing which makes God to be God, he is uncaused—and to prove that the all-knower is the all-causer is very difficult. And God is beyond all this. Have you ever asked yourself what it means that "the cosmological arguer will prove: creator of the universe?" That seems too hasty a summary to represent a valid understanding. The cosmological argument proves exactly this: If everything X is made X by a Y, and everything is apparently X, and everything exists in virtue of a maker, then there exists an unapparent Y which makes everything apparent.
What do we mean by superstition? Do you mean bad omens? Or bad luck? Seeing a black cat? Friday the 13th?
It’s a vague and connotative term that brings to mind certain things and not others.
Saying superstition is dead doesn’t help us because we don’t know what you mean by superstition.
It could be anything from believing in supernatural agents period to believing unconnected phenomena affect one’s life.
Religion or superstition to the exclusion of logical thought is Satanic deception. When logic is embedded in religious and superstitious thought, then man can commune with God through the written word. What must be noted is this: Most religious ritual, whether common or esoteric, elliptically symbolizes religious truth without actually entailing anything at all. Therein lies the difference between rites and rituals: In the liturgy (the rite), man uses the written word to entail religious truths; in the rituals surrounding the liturgy, man ostents at religious truth(s) without conjuring a single sentence.
Logic, then, serves as a tool for the teacher to make public the esoteric force of Christian initiation. And if all teachers in the Christian magisterium give up the practice of logic, then the Christian initiation-rites are lost to the occult until a reformer of sufficient learning can render them exoteric again (as has happened severally). Can we find in our history a modicum of logic which was untarnished by theology or vice-versa? After all, logic is the logic of human words, and in ancient times they were priests who kept the tradition of words. Now that the word has been unleashed, we're all baptized into co-priesthood, and we're all responsible for discerning the logic in words.
Now, what exactly am I looking for which is beyond logic's breadth? My whole object is this: What does logic tell us about how moral law relates to natural law? Every single argument/reason pursuing such a conclusion helps us touch God.
(10-18-2023, 06:52 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that God has a number of characteristics.
Omniscience, omnipresence, sentience, omnipotence, creator of the universe.
"God" only needs one of those characteristics actually, "creator of the universe." All of the other stuff listed need not be the case.
(10-22-2023, 06:20 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 06:52 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that God has a number of characteristics.
Omniscience, omnipresence, sentience, omnipotence, creator of the universe.
"God" only needs one of those characteristics actually, "creator of the universe." All of the other stuff listed need not be the case.
I'm partial to this approach, or one like it.
(10-22-2023, 06:34 PM)astrolabeabelard Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2023, 06:20 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 06:52 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that God has a number of characteristics.
Omniscience, omnipresence, sentience, omnipotence, creator of the universe.
"God" only needs one of those characteristics actually, "creator of the universe." All of the other stuff listed need not be the case.
I'm partial to this approach, or one like it.
The idea that all those attributes are needed for "God" is largely only based in Monotheism, and likely the Abrahamic faiths at that. The Gods worshipped in Ancient Greece (eg Zeus) weren't even resposible for creating the world, the Titans they overthrew were iirc. I assume for ease of argument (and singular "God" in the thread title) we want to leave out the possible truth of polytheism over monotheism. But yes, I see no necessary reason the creator of the universe must be omnipotent and omnipresent, or of course omnibenevolence.
Correction to previous post, even the Titans themselves were created, so the gods of the Greek Pantheon were even further removed form the act of creation.
(10-22-2023, 08:08 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2023, 06:34 PM)astrolabeabelard Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2023, 06:20 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 06:52 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 01:36 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't put it in the best way, but he has a point.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that God has a number of characteristics.
Omniscience, omnipresence, sentience, omnipotence, creator of the universe.
"God" only needs one of those characteristics actually, "creator of the universe." All of the other stuff listed need not be the case.
I'm partial to this approach, or one like it.
The idea that all those attributes are needed for "God" is largely only based in Monotheism, and likely the Abrahamic faiths at that. The Gods worshipped in Ancient Greece (eg Zeus) weren't even resposible for creating the world, the Titans they overthrew were iirc. I assume for ease of argument (and singular "God" in the thread title) we want to leave out the possible truth of polytheism over monotheism. But yes, I see no necessary reason the creator of the universe must be omnipotent and omnipresent, or of course omnibenevolence.
Now herein lies the critical advancement I seek: If we could prove some relationship between the conclusion of cosmological-style arguments (viz. there exists a cause of all natural effects) and the conclusion of ontological-style arguments (viz. there exists an only good thing), then perhaps we could prove that the only-good is the all-cause. But so far I don't believe such an analysis has been performed on the combined premises which entail these two conclusions in combination. In fact, these two arguments don't even employ the same background logic.