God exists subjectively?

[Minimalist]

Well, if God is Boundless

Says who?  You?  Who the fuck are you?

[bennyboy]

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]

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?

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]

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.

If you need this many words to demonstrate the existence of an all-powerful, human-interested Creator God, you're doing it wrong.

Why is it that the greatest entity who ever lived must be subjected to rationale and subtle semantics in order to "prove" he exists?

A God this subtle is irrelevant to our living of life. A God that mattered would actually. . . ya know. . . DO stuff. His existence would be undeniable. Therefore, you can pick your poison-- either God is nonexistent, or he is laughably useless. Make your choice.

[Minimalist]

Because lacking evidence they must resort to bullshit.

[Arkilogue]

Because lacking evidence they must resort to bullshit.

Literal Confucius say: "Where there is bullshit, there is bull....enter the field at your own risk of being gored, trampled and eventually shat upon."

[Tonus]

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?

I'm saying that the concept comes down to "this state always requires this condition, which leads us to a logical dead end."  Now the most obvious way to deal with a premise that leads to a logical dead end is to discard it.  Another way to deal with it is to introduce an exception, but the very existence of that exception invalidates the premise.  There may be other ways to attack the problem, but that approach doesn't work.

Each of Aquinas' five ways run into that problem on some level, which I think is the result of starting from a conclusion and trying to find a logical framework that will support it.  I suspect that he went through a great many examples before finding the five that seemed to work in his mind.  But they all require at least one unproven assertion or presumption, and without them you don't necessarily end up with God.

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?

It sounds as if you are asking "if there is a God, why not call him God?"  But as I have explained, the five ways might point to a cause, but that cause does not have to be a being.  And I am assuming that St. Thomas was not arguing for an ambiguous small-G "god" but for a God who is a supernatural person capable of creating and populating a universe.

As for the rest of your description of God, how do you know all this about him?  Is it written somewhere?  Is it verifiable?  Is it another logical proof that requires that we start with at least one unproven presumption, without which the premise leads us nowhere?  If we arbitrarily define God beforehand and then design logical proofs that only work if the definition is accepted without question, the only limit to the God(s) that we can prove is our imagination.  If we don't define God at all, then we can easily end up without one.

[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.

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.

The problem with all this mover needs a mover stuff, is that it's solely intuitive based on what we think we know now. What was the universe like when it started, if it started, or whatever the circumstances were, we just don't know.  There are no facts, only assumptions, because it's a big ole universe and it was a long time ago.
So when you say "everything needs to be moved", I say "Maybe.  Seems that way now on this planet.  But that's a pretty small piece of the puzzle."  
The big one for me that keeps my hubris in check when it comes to making claims of absolutes like you're doing, is relativity. Time is not a constant.  I understand that this is true.  But it's still counter-intuitive and unfathomable (to me). 
  
So while you're saying things are proof of a first mover, I'm saying Who the hell knows?  Who knows what other things are in the universe and what rules they follow.  Who knows if the rules have been the same for a billion years.  It's just flat unknowable.  
And that's where God lives.  Throughout human history, if something's unknown, God slides right in.  And then people figure it out, and God slides right the fuck back out.  It's happened enough, that we should be pretty suspect of that strategy by now.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Already commened on that, in response to you, in this thread.  I don;t find aquinas arguments compelling in the least.

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?

Again, already heard them, don't find them compelling.  This is why I said, and will repeat...that if the religious had such an argument they'd have long since made it known.  It;s not as if aquinas or your god are new ideas, and you;'re not the first believer to show up thinking that you're presenting aquinas to a virgin audience, lol. You won't be the last, either.

Every few weeks one of you crops up "I'll show these guys the argument they've never seen, knock down proof of god" - and then proceeds to spout off the same tired shit as the last guy. You've all got the same pauline fantasy rattling around in your heads.

[theologian]

Well, if God is Boundless

Says who?  You?  Who the fuck are you?

Does the personality and identity of the one argues affect the validity of his argument? 

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?
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.

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.

If you need this many words to demonstrate the existence of an all-powerful, human-interested Creator God, you're doing it wrong.

Why is it that the greatest entity who ever lived must be subjected to rationale and subtle semantics in order to "prove" he exists?

A God this subtle is irrelevant to our living of life.  A God that mattered would actually. . . ya know. . . DO stuff.  His existence would be undeniable.  Therefore, you can pick your poison-- either God is nonexistent, or he is laughably useless.  Make your choice.

Because man uses his reason to know, that's why to know whether God exist, man uses His reason too, but in a very deep and important way, for the topic whether God exist is a matter of life. For if there is God, then knowing and loving Him can alone make us happy.

Indeed God does stuff. For, in Him we move, we live and have our being.

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?

I'm saying that the concept comes down to "this state always requires this condition, which leads us to a logical dead end."  Now the most obvious way to deal with a premise that leads to a logical dead end is to discard it.  Another way to deal with it is to introduce an exception, but the very existence of that exception invalidates the premise.  There may be other ways to attack the problem, but that approach doesn't work.

Each of Aquinas' five ways run into that problem on some level, which I think is the result of starting from a conclusion and trying to find a logical framework that will support it.  I suspect that he went through a great many examples before finding the five that seemed to work in his mind.  But they all require at least one unproven assertion or presumption, and without them you don't necessarily end up with God.

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?

It sounds as if you are asking "if there is a God, why not call him God?"  But as I have explained, the five ways might point to a cause, but that cause does not have to be a being.  And I am assuming that St. Thomas was not arguing for an ambiguous small-G "god" but for a God who is a supernatural person capable of creating and populating a universe.

As for the rest of your description of God, how do you know all this about him?  Is it written somewhere?  Is it verifiable?  Is it another logical proof that requires that we start with at least one unproven presumption, without which the premise leads us nowhere?  If we arbitrarily define God beforehand and then design logical proofs that only work if the definition is accepted without question, the only limit to the God(s) that we can prove is our imagination.  If we don't define God at all, then we can easily end up without one.

Now, you say that there's a logical dead end and the known ways to progress successfully is to introduce an exception. However, that exception invalidates the premise, as you say. I am sure I have shown the otherwise. So, kindly  show how and why the exception invalidates the premise in Five Ways. That may be a way to show that you are talking really a non contradicting part of the Five Ways. 

Now, I agree that God's existence is not self evident, just as Aquinas have argued. However, we know that the term God means that which nothing greater can be thought of and again, by agreeing with Aquinas and you,that  from that meaning alone we cannot prove God's existence. But, with that meaning of the term God plus our capacity to sense things with our Five Senses and to arrive to logical conclusions, we can prove God's existence, and that's what the Five Ways have done exactly. So, to deny the conclusion of the five ways that God does exist without a good reason is to primarily deny both reality and logic, for the Five Ways again starts with reality and then proceed to conclusion that God exists with valid reasoning. 

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.

The problem with all this mover needs a mover stuff, is that it's solely intuitive based on what we think we know now. What was the universe like when it started, if it started, or whatever the circumstances were, we just don't know.  There are no facts, only assumptions, because it's a big ole universe and it was a long time ago.
So when you say "everything needs to be moved", I say "Maybe.  Seems that way now on this planet.  But that's a pretty small piece of the puzzle."  
The big one for me that keeps my hubris in check when it comes to making claims of absolutes like you're doing, is relativity. Time is not a constant.  I understand that this is true.  But it's still counter-intuitive and unfathomable (to me). 
  
So while you're saying things are proof of a first mover, I'm saying Who the hell knows?  Who knows what other things are in the universe and what rules they follow.  Who knows if the rules have been the same for a billion years.  It's just flat unknowable.  
And that's where God lives.  Throughout human history, if something's unknown, God slides right in.  And then people figure it out, and God slides right the fuck back out.  It's happened enough, that we should be pretty suspect of that strategy by now.

First, the Five Ways are not arguing from what is particular, so that your objection that we are just looking at the small size of reality cannot be the case, for the Five Ways argues from "being", and "being" is what common to all that exists. 

Second, the relativity of time don't really invalidate the Five Ways. Because the intellectual framework in which the Five Ways was composed is fully compatible with the theory of relativity. Because, just as the theory of relativity tells us that time does not exist absolutely, the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas and of Aristotle admits too that time doesn't exist absolutely, for time is not a substance, but an accident.

So, I will argue that if one really tries to understand the five ways, then one cannot honestly say that no one can know that God must exist per natural human knowledge. 

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.

Already commened on that, in response to you, in this thread.  I don;t find aquinas arguments compelling in the least.

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?

Again, already heard them, don't find them compelling.  This is why I said, and will repeat...that if the religious had such an argument they'd have long since made it known.  It;s not as if aquinas or your god are new ideas, and you;'re not the first believer to show up thinking that you're presenting aquinas to a virgin audience, lol.  You won't be the last, either.  

Every few weeks one of you crops up "I'll show these guys the argument they've never seen, knock down proof of god" - and then proceeds to spout off the same tired shit as the last guy.  You've all got the same pauline fantasy rattling around in your heads.

So why is that St. Thomas' arguments are not compelling, if you wouldn't mind? Are they having false premise or invalid logical sequence or both? If that is the case, then nothing can stop it to be compelling except our choice to believe subjectively instead of objectively. That will make atheist hypocrite then, for atheists accuse theists of subscribing to blind faith, and to believe subjectively is indeed to believe blindly.

[Tonus]

Now, you say that there's a logical dead end and the known ways to progress successfully is to introduce an exception. However, that exception invalidates the premise, as you say. I am sure I have shown the otherwise. So, kindly  show how and why the exception invalidates the premise in Five Ways. That may be a way to show that you are talking really a non contradicting part of the Five Ways.

1- The unmoved mover: The presumption is that there must be something at the start of a causal chain that is an exception to the state that creates that chain. This quality is then assigned to God, even though none of our senses can tell us that God is an unmoved mover.

2- The uncaused cause: Same as above. God's eternal nature is not indicated by anything we can sense, yet it is granted to him in order to break a causal chain.

3- The argument from contingency: Putting aside the knowledge of matter and energy --and our knowledge that the universe had a beginning-- that make this an outdated argument, God is given the quality of being imperishable in order to solve a problem for which he can only be the answer if he has that quality. Once again, none of our senses can discern this about God.

4- The argument from degree assumes that just because we make comparisons of quality, that these necessarily lead us up or down a chain of quality that must end in an absolute extreme. This one is so silly that I wonder why he did not discard it. Why doesn't this one lead us to a God that is the greatest evil?

5- The teleological argument assumes that an intelligent designer is required for the universe to work as it does. Considering the strides that science has made in understanding how things work, this one is badly outdated. That the argument from design is still compelling tells us more about how our brains work than how there is a need for a creator to set the universe in motion.

Unless we assign a specific quality to God that we cannot know before we even prove that he is real, the five ways don't lead us to an answer. The five ways are like the game show Jeopardy, where the answer is provided first and then a suitable question is formulated so as to arrive at it. The only one that we can say we 'see' with our senses is the argument from design, but as we continue to learn about the universe and how it works, we find that our senses are fooling us. That might seem easy to dismiss when talking about the origins of the universe, but there was a time when it would have been said about lightning and earthquakes and the tides. How do our senses reliably indicate any of the above are true without first applying a particular quality to God that we cannot know he possesses?

[bennyboy]

If you need this many words to demonstrate the existence of an all-powerful, human-interested Creator God, you're doing it wrong.

Why is it that the greatest entity who ever lived must be subjected to rationale and subtle semantics in order to "prove" he exists?

A God this subtle is irrelevant to our living of life.  A God that mattered would actually. . . ya know. . . DO stuff.  His existence would be undeniable.  Therefore, you can pick your poison-- either God is nonexistent, or he is laughably useless.  Make your choice.

Because man uses his reason to know, that's why to know whether God exist, man uses His reason too, but in a very deep and important way, for the topic whether God exist is a matter of life. For if there is God, then knowing and loving Him can alone make us happy.

If I'm required to resort to rationale and abstractions to know something, I'm not going to have a personal relationship with it. I don't have a personal relationship with black holes or with quantum particles. They exist, and they may make up my entire existence, but there's nothing personal about it.

If there IS a creator deity, and I have to turn over every stone and rationalize my way to a discovery of him, his importance is irrelevant-- there's nothing I personally need to do to make the black holes work, and there's nothing I personally need to do to accommodate such a grand being.

Indeed God does stuff. For, in Him we move, we live and have our being.

Take out God and put in the Universe, and you have a sale. What you haven't demonstrated is that your God is a real thing that I need to spend time thinking about.