God exists subjectively?

[henryp]

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.

Sure.  We create this subjective world in our mind.  Then we try to infer what exists independently.  But that's also highly subjective.  So we only loosely exist in the independent reality, and mostly exist in our percieved reality.  So what is more true to the individual?  What they experience, or what they don't know?

[Tonus]

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.

Heck of a better religion than what we've been reading here, though.

[Minimalist]

Yeah........

The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants.

But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice.

Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I invite you in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite).

It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one. After their intercourse, having discharged her sacred duty to the goddess, she goes away to her home; and thereafter there is no bribe however great that will get her.

So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfill the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus.

Herodotus - The Histories  Book I

Now, I don't know how true any of this is but I can tell you I would be a hell of a lot more likely to get my ass down to the temple than if some fuckhead were bleating on about yahweh.

[Angrboda]

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. 

You wiggle and dance but your faux semantic argument can't escape the objection.

"Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of change, and more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality." ~ Wikipedia
So is God not changing from potentiality to actuality? If he is, then he requires a prior existent. If he isn't, then you have special pleading. Both ways fail.

[theologian]

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

LOL, no?  Evidence is simple...that which is -evident-. [1]

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.[2]

1. Agree. However, does the sound argument for God's existence starts with things evident or not? Further, if you want evidence only with logical process, do you deny then the laws of logic?

2. So, if the starting point of arguments are evidence, and sound arguments has both true evidence and valid reasoning, should the conclusion be contradicting the evidence? If not, then why not accept arguments?

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. [1]

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.[2]

1. First, again, there is not an exception, for the proposition that everything moves (to be in context, it mean that everything that changes), and the conclusion shows that there must be a thing that acted upon the movements of others while not being acted upon by another. Hence, the conclusion is that there must be an Unmoved Mover, instead of concluding that there must be an Unmoved Moved, which is not an oxymoron, but also the exception that you are talking about.

Now, you are talking about unproved assertion. However, if we will really be honest and look upon the First Way, Unmoved Mover is derived from:

a. Nothing can be moved by itself.

b. So, everything that is moved must be moved by another.

c. But, if everything are moved, then everything must be moved, which is equal to infinite regress, which is equal to explaining nothing.

d. But, there are things and the principle of sufficient reason must be satisfied.

e. So, not everything are moved.

f. Thus, there must be an Unmoved Mover.

So, the conclusion f is not contradicting the premise a, and that f has been derived from premises a to e which are all true and are in valid logical sequence. Hence, it is not true that f is just an unproved assertion nor f contradicts a. Hence, your objection is not true upon examining St. Thomas Aquinas' First Way.

2. I am not sure if I have gotten your point here properly. Are you saying that we must prove that the quality of God is such and such, before we can prove that there is God? But, the quality of God can be seen without a proof by considering the meaning of the term God, which means that which nothing can be greater. So, with that meaning, we can know that what has been proven (which are the qualities you are talking about) in the 5 ways -- which both start from things that are evident and which utilized valid logical sequence -- are real (lest we deny both or either reality or logic), and therefore we can arrive at the conclusion that God must exist.

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.

Well, if God is Boundless, and every tangible evidence is bounded, then no evidence can make you know that there is God. However, that I believe, is called cherry picking.

By the way, you didn't try to answer my question on what you want to discuss first, or you are just decided and doesn't care anymore whether which one are really right, atheist or theist?

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.

However, using metaphysics which deals with things with beings, (and therefore outside of its scope are those which has no being, which are literally nothing), we can know whether there is God or not. So, I think, it is a matter of being open-minded or not.

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. 

You wiggle and dance but your faux semantic argument can't escape the objection.

"Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of change, and more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality." ~ Wikipedia
So is God not changing from potentiality to actuality?  If he is, then he requires a prior existent.  If he isn't, then you have special pleading.  Both ways fail.

Wikipedia is correct.

I have a question. Does the first way affirm in its premises that everything must change from potentiality to actuality? If it is, where can we find it in the First Way? If it isn't, then it is not a special pleading. Both ways fails to understand Aquinas again and again. And so, to understand him is to be honest and to accept finally that there really is God.

[Edwardo Piet]

Aquinas has been discredited.

I have yet to see correct discrediting of him. For, all objections I have seen are missing the point. For instance, some thought he doesn't tell what cause God if everything has a cause, yet St. Thomas Aquinas didn't hold that everything has a cause. But, to miss the point is to miss pointing what is wrong, and to miss pointing what is wrong is to not really discredit.

You're a retard then.

My bold.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Agree. However, does the sound argument for God's existence starts with things evident or not? Further, if you want evidence only with logical process, do you deny then the laws of logic?

If you're asking me whether or not the arguments I've seen start with evident things, the answer would be no..more often than not.  Sometimes they manage that, though, and fail elsewhere. Not sure why I;d want to deny "the laws of logic" (lol?)......but I guess that's the next step on your missionary flowchart, so, have at it.

2. So, if the starting point of arguments are evidence, and sound arguments has both true evidence and valid reasoning, should the conclusion be contradicting the evidence? If not, then why not accept arguments?

You mean to ask why I don't believe in god or accept arguments for god, here, yes?  Because they either -don't- refer to evident and true propositions, or they -don't- contain valid reasoning....and very often it's both.  If the religious did have an argument like the one you describe above, they'd have made everyone aware of it by now.  They don't, you don't....and in my case, it hardly matters anyway.  The fact that I don't believe and have never been presented with a compelling argument has nothing to do with why I'm not a christian, or a muslim, or any of the rest. Wouldn't be if there were a god, if I did believe or I had been presented with a compelling argument.

Makes it all kind of pointless, doesn't it?

[Tonus]

c. But, if everything are moved, then everything must be moved, which is equal to infinite regress, which is equal to explaining nothing.

There is your exception and your contradiction. In order to break the chain of infinite regress, you must either invalidate the premise or introduce an arbitrary factor that defies the premise for no other reason than to salvage it. Claiming that it exists because it is required ignores the possibility that the premise is flawed. Claiming that it is a specific entity with no explanation or evidence ignores other possibilities that are equally possible (or more possible, when you consider the nature of a God capable of creating our universe).

2. I am not sure if I have gotten your point here properly. Are you saying that we must prove that the quality of God is such and such, before we can prove that there is God?

I am saying that you cannot claim that God is an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause in order to support the premise that would prove that God exists. The equation does not give us a result of "God" unless we define God so that he solves the equation. That's convenient and self-serving. It's like saying that 2 + 2 = 5 because 5 has the intrinsic quality of also being 4, without explaining how this is so. At this point I can provide any number as the answer by assigning it the same quality.

[Whateverist]

Logical arguments for god are no where near enough. You go out and bag a god, bring at least it's pelt back here and you'll have made me a believer. Otherwise everything you say just looks silly to a fair observer uninvested in supporting your belief.

[theologian]

1. Agree. However, does the sound argument for God's existence starts with things evident or not? Further, if you want evidence only with logical process, do you deny then the laws of logic?

If you're asking me whether or not the arguments I've seen start with evident things, the answer would be no..more often than not.  Sometimes they manage that, though, and fail elsewhere.  Not sure why I;d want to deny "the laws of logic" (lol?)......but I guess that's the next step on your missionary flowchart, so, have at it. [1]

2. So, if the starting point of arguments are evidence, and sound arguments has both true evidence and valid reasoning, should the conclusion be contradicting the evidence? If not, then why not accept arguments?

You mean to ask why I don't believe in god or accept arguments for god, here, yes?  Because they either -don't- refer to evident and true propositions, or they -don't- contain valid reasoning....and very often it's both.  If the religious did have an argument like the one you describe above, they'd have made everyone aware of it by now.  They don't, you don't....and in my case, it hardly matters anyway.  The fact that I don't believe and have never been presented with a compelling argument has nothing to do with why I'm not a christian, or a muslim, or any of the rest.   Wouldn't be if there were a god, if I did believe or I had been presented with a compelling argument.

Makes it all kind of pointless, doesn't it? [2]

1. How about the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. All 5 arguments there starts with evident things. Does it fail elsewhere if not in its starting point which are evident such change, efficient causality, generation and corruption, degrees in being and final causality? If so, can you please show to me, for I am to convince that there's no God, then one should simply prove that 5 ways are either having false premises or invalid logical form or both.

2. Well I believe you that there may have unsound or invalid arguments for God's existence. I don't subscribe to reasoning like if something is true, then everyone must be aware of the argument for it. It will follow that both atheism and theism will be false now, if that hypothetical proposition is true, since not everyone really knows all the arguments for both side. So, I suggest, try the 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. For, it is already a compelling argument for God's existence. Hence, given that case, not to look it willfully will just be closing ones eye to the truth and that having to believe that no compelling argument can be seen shall not be the case anymore other than being either a lie or willful closing of eyes to the evidence and arguments, is that correct?

c. But, if everything are moved, then everything must be moved, which is equal to infinite regress, which is equal to explaining nothing.

There is your exception and your contradiction.  In order to break the chain of infinite regress, you must either invalidate the premise or introduce an arbitrary factor that defies the premise for no other reason than to salvage it.  Claiming that it exists because it is required ignores the possibility that the premise is flawed.  Claiming that it is a specific entity with no explanation or evidence ignores other possibilities that are equally possible (or more possible, when you consider the nature of a God capable of creating our universe). [1]

2. I am not sure if I have gotten your point here properly. Are you saying that we must prove that the quality of God is such and such, before we can prove that there is God?

I am saying that you cannot claim that God is an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause in order to support the premise that would prove that God exists.  The equation does not give us a result of "God" unless we define God so that he solves the equation.  That's convenient and self-serving.  It's like saying that 2 + 2 = 5 because 5 has the intrinsic quality of also being 4, without explaining how this is so.  At this point I can provide any number as the answer by assigning it the same quality.[2]

1. Please see if I understand your point here. Are you saying that c contradicts the conclusion? If yes, is the reason why it contradict the conclusion is because in c, it says if everything are moved? However, c is a hypothetical proposition and it so it doesn't affirm that everything are moved which will indeed contradict the conclusion of having an Unmoved Mover. Further, the hypothetical proposition and premise c try to suppose what is the consequence if everything are moved, and the consequence is absurd while considering the next premise d. So, I still don't understand why is there contradiction and special pleading in the first way. Kindly show it to me if there is something more to be shown to prove that allegation.

2. If there is an Unmoved Mover, First Caused, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being, and there really is per St. Thomas' 5 Ways, why it can't be called God? After all, the term God means which nothing greater can be thought of, while in reality, the Unmoved Mover, First Caused, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being can be nothing greater can be thought of. You may want to call God in other words, but that doesn't show that the Five Ways didn't proved that He exist. Further, it is impossible for us to know what is God directly, because He is Simple Being, not being composed of Act of Being and Manner of Being, but only Act of Being and all things we can define are composed of those two, hence the difficulty of knowing God directly. Hence, the proof for His existence is by way of His effects not by His qualities. Afterwards, using what we have known through 5 ways, we can prove what God is not, which can easily be shown that He isn't body etc. so we cannot substitute the universe, the particles, the matter or anything that has body for God's existence being the Unmoved Mover, First Caused, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being.

Logical arguments for god are no where near enough.  You go out and bag a god, bring at least it's pelt back here and you'll have made me a believer.  Otherwise everything you say just looks silly to a fair observer uninvested in supporting your belief.

That's why arguments for God's existence are not only logical, but also starts with real things, so if the arguments for God's existence are found to be logical and having real and true premise, then to deny God's existence afterwards is to deny either logic or reality or both.