(May 24, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ah, so now you appreciate the importance of compelling evidence.

Ha ha!!

"This villiany you teach me, I will execute!! And it will go hard, but I will better the instruction!" (Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice).

You earn a kudos for the incisive Shakespeare reference.

Are you actually saying your God is imaginary?

I think this is always the case, but I've never heard anyone come out and say it.

Yeah! "Come out" and say it!

(May 27, 2015 at 1:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Are you actually saying your God is imaginary?

I think this is always the case, but I've never heard anyone come out and say it.

I have no qualms referring to god as imaginary when speaking to those who already believe him to be so. "If one wishes to convince the masses, they must first convince them they wear the same fetters" (Voltaire)

I do not hold that god is actually imaginary any more than a person or black holes are imaginary. While I agree with the rest that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of person, black holes, or God's existence.

I am compelled to say this level of proof is untenable and exclusive of all knowledge including that of self and scientific, as well as God. (Both Descartes and Kant ran into this same particular problem) In essence by this level of proof you win the battle but you lose the war.

However, given a level of proof of circumstantial implicit empirical evidence (as demanded by the Scientific Method) the knowledge of self, science, and god may be shown as having sufficient proof to assign existence. Furthermore, man aspects of science are predicated upon theological thought (which is why many scientific discoveries and theories come from the Church).

As a realist I am forced to state that the existence of God is not contingent upon my knowledge or belief of it any more than the existence of each one of you was dependent upon my knowledge or belief.

(May 27, 2015 at 9:52 am)Anima Wrote: However, given a level of proof of circumstantial implicit empirical evidence (as demanded by the Scientific Method) the knowledge of self, science, and god may be shown as having sufficient proof to assign existence.

How did god get thrown into that list?

Gratuitously.

(May 27, 2015 at 10:53 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 9:52 am)Anima Wrote: However, given a level of proof of circumstantial implicit empirical evidence (as demanded by the Scientific Method) the knowledge of self, science, and god may be shown as having sufficient proof to assign existence.

How did god get thrown into that list?

(May 27, 2015 at 11:02 am)whateverist Wrote: Gratuitously.

Logically. However, I should note that is the God of philosophy and not the god of the Bible (again they are not the same thing).

Well nobody's given a conclusive definition (I won't even say evidence) of either.

(May 27, 2015 at 11:11 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: Well nobody's given a conclusive definition (I won't even say evidence) of either.

As written by me:

(In the following sections we will be making constant reference to a Supreme Being. We must make note at this moment that there are five different manifestations of the Supreme Being which people tend to mix ad nauseam without any regard for the definitions. Those being the following: Summum Bonum (philosophical), Summum Cerebrum (theological), Summum Malum (biblical), Summum Nihilum (atheistical), and the Summum Summa (universal). It is to be noted that we are not saying there are five supreme beings. Rather we are saying that the Supreme Being which is the Summum Summa is represented to humanity in four ways.

The Summum Bonum is the philosophical representation of the Supreme Being in which the partial conditions of humanity are extended to their maxims. Mortality becomes immortality, conscience become omniscience, presents become omnipresence, mutability becomes immutability, potency becomes omnipotence, accident becomes essence, and particular becomes universal. The Summum Bonum is the representation of the Supreme Being derived by reason alone.

The Summum Cerebrum is the theological representation of the Supreme Being based on a dialectic discursive understanding of the Supreme Being which utilizes biblical reference of the Supreme Being in relation to the deductive ability of human logic and understanding. The Summum Cerebrum may be said to be the anthropomorphism of the Supreme Being who tends to make judgments and operate according to some plan which may be extrapolated but cannot be affirmed.

The Summum Malum is the biblical representation of the Supreme Being in which the ends justify the means. The biblical representation may and often takes upon itself actions which are obviously termed bad for what is believed to be a greater purpose and tends to be far more reactive than active. The Summum Malum does not tend to restrain itself but indulges to utilize actions to fulfill a plan which cannot be determined beyond the statement, “That is what he wants.”

The Summum Nihilum is the atheistical representation of the Supreme Being in which the Supreme Being is not recognized as an actual entity. It is required as a literary object to which negation may be applied so that denial of its existence may be made. So the Supreme Being is only a being in name in order to make denial of it as a being in being.

Finally as previously expressed the Summum Summa is the actual Supreme Being from which all other versions are merely a representation of our reason (Summum Bonum), our understanding (Summum Cerebrum), our belief (Summum Malum), or our disbelief (Summum Nihilum).