• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1,199]God is Real

Either he doesn't get or playing the "Devil's" advocate.
 
:mrgreen:...Ahh it's Christmas time...not sparkle season.
 
Angel said:
Help me understand why you're "still wanting to know" from me what the nature of God is after I've just told you in the previous post that the nature of God is no part of my brief concerning God.
Click to expand...

Then would I be correct if I were to say that the entirety of what exists in the universe is what you refer to as being God?
 
Individual said:
Then would I be correct if I were to say that the entirety of what exists in the universe is what you refer to as being God?
Click to expand...
No, you'd be correct if you were to say that the principle behind the entirety of what exists in the universe is what I refer to as being God.
 
Angel said:
No, you'd be correct if you were to say that the principle behind the entirety of what exists in the universe is what I refer to as being God.
Click to expand...

Basically then,
1. Whatever must exist, exists.
2. Whatever can exist is dependent upon the known/unknown laws of nature.
Do you agree/disagree with that?
 
Individual said:
Basically then,
1. Whatever must exist, exists.
2. Whatever can exist is dependent upon the known/unknown laws of nature.
Do you agree/disagree with that?
Click to expand...
One is true by definition.
Two is true as far as we know.
I agree in the senses indicated.
 
Angel said:
One is true by definition.
Two is true as far as we know.
I agree in the senses indicated.
Click to expand...

Then, aside from religion, I see no useful purpose of a Real God other than to impose laws created by man attributed to a God.
 
Individual said:
Then, aside from religion, I see no useful purpose of a Real God other than to impose laws created by man attributed to a God.
Click to expand...
Please explain this conclusion from your two postulates.
 
Angel said:
Please explain this conclusion from your two postulates.
Click to expand...

God has been proven inessential in answering any/all questions we ask of what exists.
 
Individual said:
God has been proven inessential in answering any/all questions we ask of what exists.
Click to expand...

Except, "what lies beyond our sight, beyond that which we can prove?"

You know, the metaphysical.
 
ecofarm said:
Except, "what lies beyond our sight, beyond that which we can prove?"

You know, the metaphysical.
Click to expand...

Can you show that the metaphysical is anything other than human imagination?
 
RAMOSS said:
Can you show that the metaphysical is anything other than human imagination?
Click to expand...

No, that's why it's called metaphysical.
 
Individual said:
God has been proven inessential in answering any/all questions we ask of what exists.
Click to expand...
I did nit ask you to repeat your conclusion. I asked how you reason from logical necessity and physical possibility to the nonexistence of God?
 
Angel said:
I did nit ask you to repeat your conclusion. I asked how you reason from logical necessity and physical possibility to the nonexistence of God?
Click to expand...

My post #1536 in your "Proof of God" thread.
 
Individual said:
My post #1536 in your "Proof of God" thread.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. You said you wanted to discuss this matter. So discuss. How do you conclude to the nonexistence of God from logical necessity and physical possibility?
 
Angel said:
Don't be silly. You said you wanted to discuss this matter. So discuss. How do you conclude to the nonexistence of God from logical necessity and physical possibility?
Click to expand...

There is no logical necessity for God, it's simply a case of God exists or God doesn't exist.
 
Individual said:
There is no logical necessity for God, it's simply a case of God exists or God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

It not necessarily binary, that's falling into the silly logic trap set out by illogical theists.
God exists, God doesn't exist, God used to exist, God will exist at some later point and well any other scenario that can be dreamt up or not
 
Individual said:
There is no logical necessity for God, it's simply a case of God exists or God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Look, I really don't follow your reasoning here.

These are your premises and conclusions:

Premises
1. Whatever must exist, exists.
2. Whatever can exist is dependent upon the known/unknown laws of nature.

Conclusions:
3. Then, aside from religion, I see no useful purpose of a Real God other than to impose laws created by man attributed to a God.
4. God has been proven inessential in answering any/all questions we ask of what exists.
5. There is no logical necessity for God, it's simply a case of God exists or God doesn't exist.

How do you get from 1) logical necessity and 2) physical possibility to 3) the utility of a God concept, or 4) the superfluousness of a God concept, or 5) the necessity of a God concept?

Moreover, it is a given that "God exists or God doesn't exist." That disjunction is where our discussion begins.
 
Quag said:
It not necessarily binary, that's falling into the silly logic trap set out by illogical theists.
God exists, God doesn't exist, God used to exist, God will exist at some later point and well any other scenario that can be dreamt up or not
Click to expand...
So it would be a case of Go exists, existed, will exist or doesn't exist, didn't exist, won't exist.
For me, it's more a case of God needed to exist or didn't need to exist, and I find the latter most believable.
 
Angel said:
Look, I really don't follow your reasoning here.

These are your premises and conclusions:

Premises
1. Whatever must exist, exists.
2. Whatever can exist is dependent upon the known/unknown laws of nature.

Conclusions:
3. Then, aside from religion, I see no useful purpose of a Real God other than to impose laws created by man attributed to a God.
4. God has been proven inessential in answering any/all questions we ask of what exists.
5. There is no logical necessity for God, it's simply a case of God exists or God doesn't exist.

How do you get from 1) logical necessity and 2) physical possibility to 3) the utility of a God concept, or 4) the superfluousness of a God concept, or 5) the necessity of a God concept?

Moreover, it is a given that "God exists or God doesn't exist." That disjunction is where our discussion begins.
Click to expand...

Your two threads "Proof of God" and "God is Real" appear to based on the belief that "God exists".
I accept it to be a given that "God exists or God doesn't exist.", and my beliefs tend to lie in the latter.
1) logical necessity - I find NO logical necessity for God.
2) physical possibility - I find improbable.
3) Utility of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 3.
4) Superfluousness of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 4.
5) Necessity of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 3 and 4.

While you, and others, may believe in the existence/realness of a God, without the aid of said being such a claim is unprovable.
I, and perhaps others, find no NEED to disprove such claims but simply to point out the FACT that they serve absolutely no useful purpose at all.
IF, and a very big IF at that, a God does exist the only question is to what use/misuse do believers, theist and non-theist, put their beliefs?
 
Individual said:
So it would be a case of Go exists, existed, will exist or doesn't exist, didn't exist, won't exist.
For me, it's more a case of God needed to exist or didn't need to exist, and I find the latter most believable.
Click to expand...
Ok but even if God didn't NEED to exist that doesn't mean God didn't exist Ie God could exist without being necessary.
Point is there is nothing but unknowns in all of this, theists who try to prove God pretend it is merely an either or question
 
Angel said:
GOD IS REAL

A Note on the Thread
Contrary to 2500 years of philosophy and natural philosophy and 400 years of modern science, as well as the last 15 years of militant atheism, the existence of God is not something to be known; it is not a matter of knowledge, the existence of God. No, the existence of God (to be distinguished conceptually from the nature of God, which is the province of religion and properly so) -- the existence of God is a matter of judgment, of discernment. The existence of God is a value, a value discovered in and through the things of the world. God, the existence of God, is the value discovered in the world by unclouded percipience.

The Argument
fVbyduJ.jpg



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye of the beholder sees Beauty in a thing.

The eye of a second beholder may miss seeing the Beauty in the thing that the first beholder sees,
but sees Beauty in another thing.

Both see the Beauty of things, but in and through different things.

The eye of a third beholder may miss the Beauty of the things seen as Beautiful by the first and second beholders,
and yet see Beauty in a third thing.

All three see the Beauty of things in different things.
The Beauty they see is as Real as the things they see Beauty in.

A fourth beholder sees Beauty in nothing.
His eye is deficient: his eye is purblind.

Beauty is as Real as the world in which Beauty is seen.

Do you have an eye for Beauty?


God is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye of the beholder sees God in a thing.

The eye of a second beholder may miss God in that thing
and see God in another thing.

Both see God in things but in different things.

The eye of a third beholder may miss God in the two things
and see God in a third thing.

All three see God in different things.
God is as Real as the things they see God in.

A fourth beholder sees God in nothing.
His eye is deficient: his eye is purblind.

God is as Real as the world in which God is seen.

Do you have an eye for God?

LKbUhHd.jpg
Click to expand...

I didn't see your argument as much of an argument. Its more like a poem and statement of beliefs. Thats fine but lets call it what it is.
 
Quag said:
Ok but even if God didn't NEED to exist that doesn't mean God didn't exist Ie God could exist without being necessary.
Point is there is nothing but unknowns in all of this, theists who try to prove God pretend it is merely an either or question
Click to expand...

So in the end, it simply doesn't matter one way or the other.
 
distraff said:
I didn't see your argument as much of an argument. Its more like a poem and statement of beliefs. Thats fine but lets call it what it is.
Click to expand...
All the best poetry is argument.
 
Individual said:
Your two threads "Proof of God" and "God is Real" appear to based on the belief that "God exists".
I accept it to be a given that "God exists or God doesn't exist.", and my beliefs tend to lie in the latter.
1) logical necessity - I find NO logical necessity for God.
2) physical possibility - I find improbable.
3) Utility of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 3.
4) Superfluousness of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 4.
5) Necessity of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 3 and 4.

While you, and others, may believe in the existence/realness of a God, without the aid of said being such a claim is unprovable.
I, and perhaps others, find no NEED to disprove such claims but simply to point out the FACT that they serve absolutely no useful purpose at all.
IF, and a very big IF at that, a God does exist the only question is to what use/misuse do believers, theist and non-theist, put their beliefs?
Click to expand...

All right. Thanks for the exposition. I see we have several formidable problems facing us here. Maybe the best way to address them is point by point.

1.
Your two threads "Proof of God" and "God is Real" appear to based on the belief that "God exists".
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant. We did not undertake to discuss my two threads. We undertook a discussion of our disagreement since my definition of God was acknowledged by you as "a close enough fit" to your concept of nature.

2.
1) logical necessity - I find NO logical necessity for God.
Click to expand...
Then you must state this as a premise in your argument.

3.
3) Utility of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 3.
4) Superfluousness of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 4.
5) Necessity of a God concept - Stated in conclusion 3 and 4.
Click to expand...
Not sure what this is supposed to settle. In the earlier post I expressed your points in more concise philosophical terms, and here you simply pair up my restatements of your points with your original points.

4.
While you, and others, may believe in the existence/realness of a God, without the aid of said being such a claim is unprovable.
Click to expand...
"Without the aid of said being"? What does this mean? I get it that you reject the possibility of proof of God, but this qualifying phrase is inscrutable.

5.
I, and perhaps others, find no NEED to disprove such claims but simply to point out the FACT that they serve absolutely no useful purpose at all.
Click to expand...
What does your mission in life have to fo with what we're supposed to be discussing (see #1 above)?

6.
IF, and a very big IF at that, a God does exist the only question is to what use/misuse do believers, theist and non-theist, put their beliefs?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to what we're supposed to be discussing (see #1 above).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom