Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

Cool story?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I apologise in advance but that reads as gobbledygook to me.

I can wax lyrical all day about allegorical/non-descriptive versions of representations of beliefs/notions/identities, but it doesn't mean anything. I would say, as a case in point, your description of an atheist god (nihilism - Summum Nihilum) is utterly absurd and not really representative of anything at all. I think I get what you're trying to say, that invoking a given god to then reject/deny it is still giving credence to said god, but you'll not find any atheist doing that, ever (please correct me if that is wrong). Nobody is 'denying' that a presupposed being exists; we are challenging that very belief in its entirety. We hold the idea that there is no god to deny.

[bennyboy]

How did god get thrown into that list?

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).

Then why call it God?  Why not call it a philosophical quantity or a magic wnad?

[Whateverist]

Your latin accent is so thick I can't understand what you're saying here. Summa, summa, magna, magna .. buggus dickus?

---

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).

---

[Anima]

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).

Then why call it God?  Why not call it a philosophical quantity or a magic wnad?

That is what Kant said. Even if a single causal thing may be determined by ontology or a single thing upon which all knowledge is predicated on may be determined by epistemology there is nothing to say that thing is "God", other than us already having an entity that serves that function called "God"

As the "God" of philosophy is only the human condition taken to their maximums there is no reason to call it "God" beyond the idea that man was made in "God's " image. As such man would be an imperfect representation of "God" and if made perfect would be "God" (coincidentally this is Nietzche's argument for the ubermensch)

[Esquilax]

Anima, if your argument only concerns this deistic philosophical god, why are you a catholic?

[Cyberman]

How did god get thrown into that list?

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).

Then you should have no trouble showing us the chain of logic you used, whichever "God" you are plugging. Personally, I have a soft spot for Bilious, the Oh God of Hangovers.

[Anima]

Then you should have no trouble showing us the chain of logic you used, whichever "God" you are plugging. Personally, I have a soft spot for Bilious, the Oh God of Hangovers.

The god of philosophy is the personification of the affirmative qualities of man in which the partial conditions of are extended to their affirmative maxims.  

Mortality may be said to be the conditional of an entity that is not dead, but may die. The maxim of the affirmative would be an entity which is not dead and cannot die. Also know as immortal. The maxim of the negative would be an entity which is dead and may never be alive.

Conscience may be said the condition of limited sentience. The maxim of the affirmative would be a condition of unlimited sentience or omniscience,. The maxim of the negative would be the lack of sentience.

Presence is the limited existence of an entity. The maxim of the affirmative is the unlimited existence of an entity or omnipresence. The maxim of the negative would be an entity would be the lack of presence.

And so it goes where mutability becomes immutability, potency becomes omnipotence, accident becomes essence, and particular becomes universal.

It may be argued that anything which does exist has maxim logical affirmative and negative existence to it. Which is to say there is a spectrum of existence. Particular imperfect things lie along that spectrum, but do not occupy either end points of the spectrum.

[Esquilax]

The god of philosophy is the personification of the affirmative qualities of man in which the partial conditions of are extended to their affirmative maxims.  

Mortality may be said to be the conditional of an entity that is not dead, but may die.  The maxim of the affirmative would be an entity which is not dead and cannot die.  Also know as immortal.  The maxim of the negative would be an entity which is dead and may never be alive.

Conscience may be said the condition of limited sentience.  The maxim of the affirmative would be a condition of unlimited sentience or omniscience,. The maxim of the negative would be the lack of sentience.

Presence is the limited existence of an entity.  The maxim of the affirmative is the unlimited existence of an entity or omnipresence.  The maxim of the negative would be an entity would be the lack of presence.

And so it goes where mutability becomes immutability, potency becomes omnipotence, accident becomes essence, and particular becomes universal.

It may be argued that anything which does exist has maxim logical affirmative and negative existence to it.  Which is to say there is a spectrum of existence.  Particular imperfect things lie along that spectrum, but do not occupy either end points of the spectrum.

Two thoughts: One, nothing in what you just said proves, or even implies, that a being exists at either end of that spectrum. That's what we want out of a chain of logic; a method by which we can determine the existence of the entity under discussion, not just a laundry list of his traits.

And two, your religious views say Catholic: there are a number of other claims attached to the Catholic god, well beyond the deistic one you're attempting to deal with here. Why aren't you dealing with the god you actually believe in? Or alternatively, why call yourself a Catholic without believing in the Catholic god?

[Anima]

Anima, if your argument only concerns this deistic philosophical god, why are you a catholic?

The short answer is that the catholic belief in god incorporates many aspects of both the philosophical god as well as the logic of prominent philosophers (the most influential of which is Aristotle). Most of the positions of the catholic church follow from Aristotelian logic (as expressed very well by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologia. An excellent read I recommend for everyone). So an educated catholic may follow the logic nearly the entire way to the end point with a little bit of faith required to make the transcendental jump to the the teleological conclusion.

While I understand the desire for explicit direct empirical proof in all things. It is readily apparent that there is little explicit direct empirical proof for things (to my knowledge such does not exist for anything which is not axiomatic or tautological). I would consider it hypocritical to accept implicit circumstantial empirical proof (in accordance with the scientific method established by Aristotle of metaphysical deduction supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence) in any number of fields of philosophical, scientific and legal studies, but not in terms of theology.

I am not sure this answer will suffice to give explanation. As I stated before, argument may be made of objective reality, further argument may be made consolidating that reality into a single thing, further argument may even be made as to many of the particulars of that thing. But argument may not be made to the particular deity of any given religion. That last step will require faith.