If the theistic god is conceived as the uncaused firstcause that is also an incorporeal mind, a conciousness outside of time and space then it cannot and does not exist. As a conciousness it would have existed without there being any time, space, matter or energy. Therefore at one point god could only be concious of it's own conciousness. This is impossibly incoherent as there is nothing external to this mind it cannot be confident of it's own existence. Taking humankind as an example, we are only aware of ourselves with reference to things or others around us. To assert otherwise is like saying conciousness is concious of conciousness is concious of conciousness...ad infinitum

Heard of "I think therefore I am"?

Yet another epic fail Scarlet.

(September 7, 2010 at 5:31 pm)theVOID Wrote: Heard of "I think therefore I am"?
Yet another epic fail Scarlet.

Yes Rene Descartes (a strong catholic) and his failed philosophy. It is a meningless soundbite VOID.

Actually it is rather potent to those who take the time to think deeply.

(September 8, 2010 at 10:12 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Yes Rene Descartes (a strong catholic) and his failed philosophy. It is a meningless soundbite VOID.

Why is such a simple idea a failed philosophy? Even solopsists can't dispute it? Also, careful about poisoning the well. The fact that he's a Catholic doesn't mean he might not be right about other things.

Whilst it's probably a little extreme to claim Descartes' proposition "Je pense donc je suis'' * as a failed philosophy,there have been some serious critiques. Notably from Soren Kierkegaard and Bernard Williams.

Descartes' proposition is widely accepted and considered crucial in the development of western philosophy.That makes his ideas of value and worthy of study,it does not make them true necessarily. To argue something is true because it has not been proved to be false or false because it has not been proved to be true is a common logical fallacy,argument from ignorance.This was expressed pithily by Carl Sagan as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

*Descartes wrote in French,not Latin.

Padriac, one thinking is proof of one thinking, it is not a statement that depends on not being disproved, such as the God belief, so i don't see why that Sagan quote is in any way relevent in this conversation.

(September 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm)theVOID Wrote: Padriac, one thinking is proof of one thinking, it is not a statement that depends on not being disproved, such as the God belief, so i don't see why that Sagan quote is in any way relevent in this conversation.

I was replying to this point by Deist Paladin

Quote:Why is such a simple idea a failed philosophy? Even solopsists can't dispute it?

I read that as implying that Descartes' argument is true because it has not been proved to be false. Not entirely sure that using solipists is an appeal to relevant authority as I think solipism could reasonably be described as a failed philosophy.

However,I'm a dilettante,not a philosopher,so am happy to be corrected if I've made an error in reason.

While describing belief in dismissive context, you have stumbled close to the answer. This reality exists as God experiencing herself, ad infinium. I think that is the point.

Descartes was not failed in the sense that we have somehow disproven "I think...", but in the sense that Scepticism is not the New World Orders state philosophy.

"God created the rules, so of course he can bypass them, God exists in a realm beyond time and space. You cannot fathom his greatness"

Aaaaand you lose.