Logical proof for the existence of holy god.

[Skavau]

let me see, by "dismissed" you mean : I'm not sure it's true, or I'm sure it's false ?

Dismissed, as in ignored. We cannot be actually sure of anything. There could be lots of different things that might be true, but we do not entertain them unless we have evidence for them.

Thor, Spaghetti Monster, ... : it's irrealistic+without evidence, but for me if I can show it's impossible (spaghetti can't logically fly), then I can say it's false.

How is it unrealistic? It is no more unreasonable than proposing a supernatural entity concerned with human affairs exists. They both have no evidence, they both could exist.

Concerning the observed inability of spaghetti to fly - it doesn't matter. I could decree the Flying Spaghetti Monster beyond the laws we know and understand. I could make an exemption, stating that the FSM is simply beyond it. You know, precisely what theists do with God.

And the minimum God's characteristics can't be applied to these mythical "Gods", no need to mention them.

You're not doing your argument any favours here. You appear to forget it is shrouded in ignorance and one of your foundations is ignorance. Why should I be concerned about what you think 'God's' characteristics are? We've already established that we're working from the (pointless) foundation of 'what if?' You've already made the greatest concession that anything could be true.

So what you've concluded on God is irrelevant.

 

[marwen]

Dismissed, as in ignored. We cannot be actually sure of anything. There could be lots of different things that might be true, but we do not entertain them unless we have evidence for them.

Ok, that's good.

Concerning the observed inability of spaghetti to fly - it doesn't matter. I could decree the Flying Spaghetti Monster beyond the laws we know and understand. I could make an exemption, stating that the FSM is simply beyond it. You know, precisely what theists do with God.

Wen talking about a "God" (just talking, not believing in him), there is a distinction between him and between the objects he created. Supposing a God exists, it's pretty logical that he's superior than the objects he created, or as you said beyond our limits. But that's not applicable to everything. that will be nonsense.

You're not doing your argument any favours here. You appear to forget it is shrouded in ignorance and one of your foundations is ignorance. Why should I be concerned about what you think 'God's' characteristics are? We've already established that we're working from the (pointless) foundation of 'what if?' You've already made the greatest concession that anything could be true.
So what you've concluded on God is irrelevant.

A God must have some divine characteristics if he exists. You don't have to be a believer to know that. Although you can't be sure if God exists, you can at least affirm that it should be differences between the characteristics of a God and those of a creation of God.

 

[Skavau]

Wen talking about a "God" (just talking, not believing in him), there is a distinction between him and between the objects he created. Supposing a God exists, it's pretty logical that he's superior than the objects he created, or as you said beyond our limits. But that's not applicable to everything. that will be nonsense.

How do we know that supernatural spaghetti monsters are not beyond the rules of logic?

A God must have some divine characteristics if he exists. You don't have to be a believer to know that. Although you can't be sure if God exists, you can at least affirm that it should be differences between the characteristics of a God and those of a creation of God.

What are you talking about? When I talk about the possibility of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am not talking about it as if it is a creation of a God. I am suggesting that maybe, as we don't know, it could be the creator.

 

[marwen]

How do we know that supernatural spaghetti monsters are not beyond the rules of logic?

Why should an FSM be beyound the rules of logic. With a God we have a reason (a creator). May be there is no reason to accept it with something other than a God.

When I talk about the possibility of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am not talking about it as if it is a creation of a God. I am suggesting that maybe, as we don't know, it could be the creator.

No, that doesn't work. You can't give an imaginary character and say ok it can exist if we suppose it's a God. I can give you a million examples, as my imagination give. You're just taking the opposit way : you imagine that an entity exists and find out the indications of it's existence. But the right way is to find some indications(I can't say poofs) that an entity(a God) exists, then admit that it possibly exists. Concerning the FSM you just imagined it exists (as aprachute drop), and you say it can exist, and let's find out why it can exist : you're not gonna pull through. You can give a million of useless examples : unicorn, mermaid, Phoenix, elfs, giants ... (i can give more) and that means nothing because you're just inventing, not making a reasonable result, you're just beginning from the end.

 

[Skavau]

Why should an FSM be beyound the rules of logic. With a God we have a reason (a creator). May be there is no reason to accept it with something other than a God.

Why should 'God' being the 'creator' mean that he must be immune from the rules of logic? You have given no reason to support this.

No, that doesn't work. You can't give an imaginary character and say ok it can exist if we suppose it's a God.

How is it any different than just supposing that perhaps God exist?

I can give you a million examples, as my imagination give. You're just taking the opposit way : you imagine that an entity exists and find out the indications of it's existence. But the right way is to find some indications(I can't say poofs) that an entity(a God) exists, then admit that it possibly exists. Concerning the FSM you just imagined it exists (as aprachute drop), and you say it can exist, and let's find out why it can exist : you're not gonna pull through. You can give a million of useless examples : unicorn, mermaid, Phoenix, elfs, giants ... (i can give more) and that means nothing because you're just inventing, not making a reasonable result, you're just beginning from the end.

It doesn't matter. Our foundation is ignorance. Or rather, your foundation is ignorance. You already conceded that we should just assume that God exists based on "what if?" We could just postulate anything as considerable and it would have just as much merit as what you're saying.

 

[marwen]

Why should 'God' being the 'creator' mean that he must be immune from the rules of logic? You have given no reason to support this.

The reason is that the creator is not constrained by the physical/logical rules he fixed himself for the creatures he made. Let's say he's out of the limits of the creatures.

It doesn't matter. Our foundation is ignorance. Or rather, your foundation is ignorance. You already conceded that we should just assume that God exists based on "what if?" We could just postulate anything as considerable and it would have just as much merit as what you're saying.

No it does matter, just think about it.
If starting from real indications, we conclude the eventual existence of something, it's different from inventing something from scratch and then trying to find out signs/indication of his existence. the logic is totally different. The second way is not the correct way of reasoning, because our mind starts by making observation and then deducting results. But when we are not motivated by observations, and we try to invent results, the space of research can be infinite and different from reality.

 

[Trumble]

I mean by coincidence theory the idea that all the creatures appeared by coincidence, without an intentional creation by God : natural factors, climate conditions, and other material causes ...

Could you give me the definition of the word 'coincidence' that you are using here? Do you mean 'accident'?

Emotions I don't know, but consciousness cannot be considered as a mental state that can be explained by phisological or chemical/electric phenomena. I don't really have a big experience in neuroscience, but a simple philosophic reflection can show it's beyond scientific proving.

Churchland (who is a philosopher) argues just the opposite, although of course he can only do so conceptually as we don't (yet?) have a completed neuroscience, or anything resembling one. What 'simple philosophic reflection' are you talking about that resolves perhaps the most discussed question in contemporary philosophy of mind?!

No it does matter, just think about it.
If starting from real indications, we conclude the eventual existence of something, it's different from inventing something from scratch and then trying to find out signs/indication of his existence. the logic is totally different. The second way is not the correct way of reasoning, because our mind starts by making observation and then deducting results. But when we are not motivated by observations, and we try to invent results, the space of research can be infinite and different from reality.

Descartes argued exactly the opposite, that certain knowledge can only be obtained independently of sense experience (starting with his famous "I think therefore I am") as sense experience can never be confirmed as reliable. You might find it worthwhile reading his Meditations or a summary of same, particularly in view of the thread topic as that position is the essential foundation for Descartes' own attempted logical proof for the existence of God.

While the rationalism v. empiricism debate is also still very much open I would suggest (with no claim of originality!) that we have no choice of a 'correct' way to reason in that context. Our empirical observations might be so totally conditioned by our minds and mental concepts (such as space, time and causation) we are unable to confirm, or even assume, they are any more than 'invented from scratch' anyway.

 

[Skavau]

The reason is that the creator is not constrained by the physical/logical rules he fixed himself for the creatures he made. Let's say he's out of the limits of the creatures.

We could say that. I could just as plausibly claim that my divine being of choice happens to be also outside of the laws of logic. How is your exemption clause any more meaningful than mine?

And by the way, by simply declaring by decree that God is not bound by any form of rules or subject to any form of criticism you frankly to me negate its concept to lunacy. You present a meaningless concept that when questioned retreats into declaring itself exempt from human criticism. It is not a convincing argument.

If starting from real indications, we conclude the eventual existence of something, it's different from inventing something from scratch and then trying to find out signs/indication of his existence. the logic is totally different.

It is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming we ought to assume a theistic God on the basis of fear of punishment and then further trying to connect consciousness as evidence for it.

 

[Skavau]

Trumble & Marwen, I suggest you take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

He has some other good stuff, and I know he did something on consciousness.

 

[marwen]

Could you give me the definition of the word 'coincidence' that you are using here? Do you mean 'accident'?

Yes.

Churchland (who is a philosopher) argues just the opposite, although of course he can only do so conceptually as we don't (yet?) have a completed neuroscience, or anything resembling one. What 'simple philosophic reflection' are you talking about that resolves perhaps the most discussed question in contemporary philosophy of mind?!

neuroscience is working with material interactions in the mind : electric interaction, chemical processes, ... Therefore they can describe the mind only by it's material part. In the following quotation I explained my point of view about the eventual existence of a non-material part in the mind:

.. if we look at the nature of purely material objects, we can't find these characteristics of autonomy and consciousness. All pieces of material are the same, no? a piece of wood, a piece of iron, a group of molecules ... There can be interaction in the interiour of a material object, but these are electrostatic, chemical, mechanical interactions and processes : Material has no consciousness, that's a property of any piece of matter. (please don't tell me a rock is conscious)
The second argument is that material objects conserve their material nature by composition: I mean if I join tow pieces of material to form a big one piece, the new piece of material formed by composition will conserve the characteristic of material. And any pure material structure (formed by composition) have these characteristics.

That's the definition of material for me, if I'm wrong I'll be glad if you correct my conception of material.
And if an object (like the mind) has other characteristics (consciousness) than the material ones, it'll be considered non-material, or not totally material. Therefore, a mind in my point of view is not totally material, even though I can't determine the frontieres between the material part and the non-material part.

Descartes argued exactly the opposite, that certain knowledge can only be obtained independently of sense experience (starting with his famous "I think therefore I am") as sense experience can never be confirmed as reliable. You might find it worthwhile reading his Meditations or a summary of same, particularly in view of the thread topic as that position is the essential foundation for Descartes' own attempted logical proof for the existence of God.

I was talking about the human deductive reasoning, which can be also independent from the sense experience, but still respects the deductive approach : an observation leads to a result, where "observation" can be different from a sense experience : it can be a potential proposition, a fact, ... In fact, Decartes didn't started from a concrete/sense experience, but from an abstract observation (I think, then I exist), he's still following the deductive reasonning to conclude the existence of God (the result) in his reflection. I mean by deductive reasoning the regular process of : observation ==> logical inference ==> result. I don't really see the opposite in Descartes' reasoning.

 

[marwen]

Trumble & Marwen, I suggest you take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

He has some other good stuff, and I know he did something on consciousness.

Thanks a lot. It's good to have sources about the topic. I'm gonna watch this video now.