God exists subjectively?

[theologian]

Well, we must first settle whether there is God or there isn't, before we talk about the Bible, because the truth of the Bible relies on the authority of God.

No.  You cannot provide evidence that your god is anything other than a delusion.  Your bible on the other hand does exist.  Cobbled together since the 3d century BC, added to and subtracted from by various men, all of whom were seeking to exert control over gullible peasants.  The muslims feel that the koran relies on the authority of god, too.  What do you have to say about that?

Well, you may insist that we theist don't have evidence, yet it doesn't show anything. After all, to have really no evidences is one thing, and to ignore evidence while saying that there are no evidences is another. For, since there are arguments for God's existence which are sound, then the good and helpful thing to do is not to ignore it, but to refute those arguments properly.

I agree that Muslims appeal to God's authority in appealing to Koran. However, that doesn't mean that that cannot be discredited by arguing for the Bible as the sole inspired writings by appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church, whom is the one who compiled the Bible and proclaimed that it is writings inspired by God, whose authority can be proved from history, specifically in the authority of Christ, Whom truly existed in history,  Whose Divinity can be proven by human reason too, which is confirmed by many miracles, and if Christ is God and declared that the Church He founded, the Catholic Church, to be infallible, then the truth that Bible is the written word of God can be accepted reasonably. 

So, what do you want to be discussed here? Is it the evidence for God's existence, or the truth of the Bible being the Written Word of God? If the former, then it is very fitting here. After all, this is the Philosophy section of the forum. But, if the latter, not only it is not fitting here, (for it includes history of the Bible, of the Church and of Christ which are fitting to be talked about in religion section if there is a section like that) but it also requires you to accept that God exist, for if we are to discuss whether the Bible is the written Word of God, then again, it must be proved first that God does exist, and He truly is per evidences. 

If the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas are special pleading, then everything shall be special pleading.

If you accept his Five Ways, then special pleading is required.  The moment you decide that a universal rule that applies to everything does not apply to one thing in particular, then the rule is no longer universal.  As soon as you decide that there has to be an "unmoved mover" you have invalidated the premise that everything that moves was acted upon by something else, because you introduced an exception.  At that point I can simply decide that the unmoved mover is something else and discard God with the same amount of effort that was required to introduce him.

Okay, your point is that Five Ways are really special pleading. For, every conclusion that contradicts the premise is a special pleading. But, according to you, the first way which has a premise that everything that moves must be acted by something else, while the conclusion states that there must be an Unmoved Mover and thus it contradicts the premise. Therefore, your point that the First Way in the Five Ways are just special pleading. 

However, one of the premise of your point is false. For, in the First Way, the conclusion states that there is an Unmoved Mover and not Unmoved Moved, and that one of the premise states that everything that moves (or in motion to be precise) must be acted upon by another and not that every mover must be acted upon. In that case, there is no contradiction between the premise and the conclusion. So, your first reason why the First Way of the Five Ways is a special pleading, i.e. the conclusion contradicts with the premise, is found to be not the case. 

Second, you label the Five Ways as special pleading, because the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Necessary Being, the Perfect Being and the Super Intelligent Being Which proven to exist in Five Ways can just be other Being other than God.

But, that can't be, for beings other than God are those things which HAVE being, in contrast with God Whom is NOT a thing having being, but the Being Itself, for the term God means which nothing greater can be thought of the Being Itself is Infinitely greater than things have just being. So if there is an Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being, then that can only be God, as people call Him.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, what is evidence? Isn't whatever shows you the truth is an evidence?

LOL, no?  Evidence is simple...that which is -evident-.

But, arguments shows us the truth granted that it is sound. Therefore, arguments are evidence.

Arguments aren't evidence, they make nothing -evident-.  They are arguments, and, ironically, they are argued in reference to what -is- evident.  

I'm starting to think that your beliefs amount to a reliable misunderstanding of words and nothing else.  That's what's being made -evident-...in any case.

[Tonus]

However, one of the premise of your point is false. For, in the First Way, the conclusion states that there is an Unmoved Mover and not Unmoved Moved, and that one of the premise states that everything that moves (or in motion to be precise) must be acted upon by another and not that every mover must be acted upon. In that case, there is no contradiction between the premise and the conclusion. So, your first reason why the First Way of the Five Ways is a special pleading, i.e. the conclusion contradicts with the premise, is found to be not the case.

It seems as though you re-stated the case.  Everything that moves must be acted upon by a mover, with one exception.  Either the mover does not have to be moved (unproven assertion) or the mover is unmoved (unproven assertion).  Since the example is being used to prove that God is required, it cannot be used to confirm the qualities that are being used to prove that God is required.  Unless you can demonstrate how God is unmoved or how he is an exception to the rule, the conclusion is not compelling.

Second, you label the Five Ways as special pleading, because the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Necessary Being, the Perfect Being and the Super Intelligent Being Which proven to exist in Five Ways can just be other Being other than God.

But, that can't be, for beings other than God are those things which HAVE being, in contrast with God Whom is NOT a thing having being, but the Being Itself, for the term God means which nothing greater can be thought of the Being Itself is Infinitely greater than things have just being. So if there is an Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being, then that can only be God, as people call Him.

I am not saying that it can be a different being, I am saying there can be another cause.  If we are going to use intuition to walk us through the examples, then we "know" that not every action has a conscious intellect as its cause and thus we cannot say with certainty that the first cause is one.  These proofs for the existence of God cannot work if they rely on unproven assertions of qualities that are required for the proof to work.

[Minimalist]

I agree that Muslims appeal to God's authority in appealing to Koran. However, that doesn't mean that that cannot be discredited by arguing for the Bible as the sole inspired writings by appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church

They feel the same way about your bullshit, dummy.  And I say a pox on both your houses.

When you get some tangible evidence that your horseshit is anything more than horseshit feel free to look me up.  Philosophy is useless jargon.

[henryp]

The five ways stuff is dopey.


The answer is not God, it's "Who the fuck knows!?!?!"  It was billions years ago.  We have our small little snapshot of existence from our tiny little planet.  

We don't know yet.  We may never know.  That's kind of to be expected.

[henryp]

"Exists subjectively" is an oxymoron.

Thanks for playing; please try again.

You're having a dream.  You are talking to a dog named Carlos.  From your point of view, the dog exists.  But the dog only exists from your perspective in that dream.  Is that not subjective existence?

[bennyboy]

For us, 100% of things exist subjectively, and only so. That's how the mind works.

However, we make inferences about our experience, and arrive at the belief that the things we see exist independently of that experience.

[Minimalist]

"Exists subjectively" is an oxymoron.

Thanks for playing; please try again.

You're having a dream.  You are talking to a dog named Carlos.  From your point of view, the dog exists.  But the dog only exists from your perspective in that dream.  Is that not subjective existence?

Ok - I'll go you one better.  I'm sitting wide awake here at my computer imagining a nude, 10+ supermodel with huge tits blowing me.  No matter how much I think about it  it is not real.

I wish it were.

[henryp]

You're having a dream.  You are talking to a dog named Carlos.  From your point of view, the dog exists.  But the dog only exists from your perspective in that dream.  Is that not subjective existence?

Ok - I'll go you one better.  I'm sitting wide awake here at my computer imagining a nude, 10+ supermodel with huge tits blowing me.  No matter how much I think about it  it is not real.

I wish it were.

Still gives you a boner.

[Minimalist]

Poor substitute.