How can God not exist?

[Dywyddyr]

Okay, I can see where this is going

I doubt it. This another of your pre-formed ideas, and yet another example of your dishonesty.
What was it you said earlier?
Oh yeah, "when the going gets tough the weak get going".
You refuse to stand up for the consequences of your dishonesty, instead preferring to back out altogether until you see another opportunity to start the whole cycle all over again.

 

[wellwisher]

When I was younger, the way I resolved God, was somewhere in the middle between atheism and religion. The reality was, nobody can prove or disprove God. However, the idea of God is very ancient and has survived centuries of attempts to undermine this concept. It is still alive in the minds and hearts of billions. It also constnatly makes the atheists, who claim to be rational, become irrational.

One way to explain this composite observation, for both the faithful and the atheists was the unconscious mind. Faith is not based on conscious knowledge, but more on an intuitive or unconscious feeling where one is conscious of the unconscious, but may not be able to put the percetion into language.

The concept of God, by being higher than humans, suggested to me that the aspect of the unconscious mind religion was dealing with (symbolized by God, would need to be higher in brain hierarchy than the conscious mind. If God was a projection, it would represent the most integrated or wired part of the brain. Being so central in the brain/mind, this aspect of the brain, if triggered, would be very compelling able to drive some with the intensity of an instinct.

The Psychologist, Carl Jung, developed the concept of the collective unconscious, which represents collective human propensity. It is what characterizes humans as a species and therefore is common to all; human nature.

Religions can create a unique commonality among billions of people, using an irrational concept, because the concept represents command lines which can get the collective unconscious involved. Purely intellectual orientations, don't integrate people as well or as long, since they don't make use of the command lines for the collective unconscious.

 

[spidergoat]

It's the product on subconscious wish-thinking in other words. (There are an infinite number of ideas that cannot be proved or disproved)

 

[Dywyddyr]

It also constnatly makes the atheists, who claim to be rational, become irrational.

Please show where this happens.

Faith is not based on conscious knowledge, but more on an intuitive or unconscious feeling where one is conscious of the unconscious, but may not be able to put the percetion into language.

You mean a feeling, a belief?
Yeah, so what?

The concept of God, by being higher than humans, suggested to me that the aspect of the unconscious mind religion was dealing with (symbolized by God, would need to be higher in brain hierarchy than the conscious mind. If God was a projection, it would represent the most integrated or wired part of the brain. Being so central in the brain/mind, this aspect of the brain, if triggered, would be very compelling able to drive some with the intensity of an instinct.

Circular nonsense.

Religions can create a unique commonality among billions of people, using an irrational concept

So now you're saying religion is irrational.

because the concept represents command lines which can get the collective unconscious involved. Purely intellectual orientations, don't integrate people as well or as long, since they don't make use of the command lines for the collective unconscious.

Riiight. Introducing more woo wooism doesn't help your case.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh, for the record, the lie:

I'm willing to accept that my claim ''the atheist religion'' could have been construed as ''ALL atheist'' fall into that scope.

Stated here.
If the argument is followed in its entirety from here it is clear that everyone involved was using that understanding. Including Jan.
He reverted to a more limited definition after posting links that supposedly supported his contention that there are certain sub-sets of atheism that are religions, while ignoring the fact - stated in his own links - that that is a legal fiction for First Amendment purposes only: the way a man is regarded as a woman for that purpose. In other words, not only was his final contention not true but even the fiction that it was applies only to one country.

 

[wynn]

EVERYBODY:

Here is a formalized version of the Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God:


The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

This argument, made famous by Rene Descartes, has a kinship to the ontological argument (13). It starts from the idea of God. But it does not claim that real being is part of the content of that idea, as the ontological argument does. Rather it seeks to show that only God himself could have caused this idea to arise in our minds.

It would be impossible for us to reproduce the whole context Descartes gives for this proof (see his third Meditation), and fruitless to follow his scholastic vocabulary. We give below the briefest summary and discussion.

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

Consider the following common objection. The idea of God can easily arise like this: we notice degrees of perfection among finite beings—some are more perfect (or less imperfect) than others. And to reach the idea of God, we just project the scale upward and outward to infinity. Thus there seems to be no need for an actually existing God to account for the existence of the idea. All we need is the experience of things varying in degrees of perfection, and a mind capable of thinking away perceived limitations.

But is that really enough? How can we think away limitation or imperfection unless we first recognize it as such? And how can we recognize it as such unless we already have some notion of infinite perfection? To recognize things as imperfect or finite involves the possession of a standard in thought that makes the recognition possible.

Does that seem farfetched? It does not mean that toddlers spend their time thinking about God. But it does mean that, however late in life you use the standard, however long before it comes explicitly into consciousness, still, the standard must be there in order for you to use it. But where did it come from? Not from your experience of yourself or of the world that exists outside you. For the idea of infinite perfection is already presupposed in our thinking about all these things and judging them imperfect. Therefore none of them can be the origin of the idea of God; only God himself can be that.

Source


Let's go and dissect this one.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

An imperfect definition for something that embodies absolute perfection? seems pointless. The word has never been able to describe something that exists in reality, perhaps because our reality is definitive and perfection is unreachable. This leads to god not existing.

Perhaps it is only unreachable because we refuse to believe perfection exists.

We haven't reached a level of consciousness that allows for god to exist the propper way and perhaps we never will.

 

[spidergoat]

4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.

That's just wrong. If I push a domino, the effect will be greater than the cause. Also, conceiving the idea of perfection is not the same thing as achieving perfection itself. That's like saying humans can't invent the idea of flying because they can't fly.

 

[SciWriter]

One way to explain this composite observation, for both the faithful and the atheists was the unconscious mind. Faith is not based on conscious knowledge, but more on an intuitive or unconscious feeling where one is conscious of the unconscious, but may not be able to put the percetion into language.

This is the more holistic right hemisphere of the brain, which may even feel a kind of presence which is hard to put into words. The right brain itself is the presence, not God.

 

[glaucon]

Oh really!!

At what point in my ''Hume'' did I arrive at a conclusion?

jan.

???????!!

Jan, I'm seriously starting to actually consider the idea that you are in fact insane. At least that would explain your behaviour.

How is it that you think what you've written here in any way whatsoever qualifies as a response to my post??? Can you not even read anymore? Seriously.


I've read over the posts made in the past 24 hours, and you continue to come across as a complete loony. You respond to other members with utterly irrelevant responses that always fail to address the very question that was leveled at you , or the criticism of your post. This is nothing more than blatant intellectual dishonesty. People here are trying to engage you in conversation, but you're more interested in a monologue. That being the case, it's literally a contradiction for you to be on this forum.


Mod Note:

Jan,

Consider yourself officially Warned.
At the next instance of evasion, equivocation, quid pro quo, or simply ignoring another member's question and/or criticism, you will again be Temp Banned.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's just wrong. If I push a domino, the effect will be greater than the cause. Also, conceiving the idea of perfection is not the same thing as achieving perfection itself. That's like saying humans can't invent the idea of flying because they can't fly.

So you are trying to say that you (the cause) is less than a table full of toppled over dominoes (the effect)?

Or are you simply incorrectly attributing the cause as the first domino that falls on a table of dominoes?
Or that your intellect and consciousness that constructs the whole experiment is less than a domino?

 

[lightgigantic]

An imperfect definition for something that embodies absolute perfection? seems pointless. The word has never been able to describe something that exists in reality, perhaps because our reality is definitive and perfection is unreachable. This leads to god not existing.

Perhaps it is only unreachable because we refuse to believe perfection exists.

We haven't reached a level of consciousness that allows for god to exist the propper way and perhaps we never will.

hence the question of establishing an idea is one that is always dependent on the resources that frame it (for instance advanced aviation is unattainable to stone age cultures, even if they are in the pilot seat of a space shuttle)

 

[spidergoat]

So you are trying to say that you (the cause) is less than a table full of toppled over dominoes (the effect)?

Or are you simply incorrectly attributing the cause as the first domino that falls on a table of dominoes?
Or that your intellect and consciousness that constructs the whole experiment is less than a domino?

Whether I do it or not is immaterial, we could be talking about the wind knocking it over.

 

[lightgigantic]

Whether I do it or not is immaterial, we could be talking about the wind knocking it over.

so you think that the wind is less than a table full of dominoes (a wind capable of establishing all the dominoes in such an array too it seems)?

 

[lightgigantic]

Whether I do it or not is immaterial, we could be talking about the wind knocking it over.

BTW here is another similarly immaterial encounter, this time with a road sign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3ABWWxs20

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

Jan, I'm seriously starting to actually consider the idea that you are in fact insane. At least that would explain your behaviour.

How is it that you think what you've written here in any way whatsoever qualifies as a response to my post??? Can you not even read anymore? Seriously.

Okay. Maybe I have stumbeled into an alternate reality here, or something of the sort. So I am going to open this up.

According to wiki (i'm assuming this is a reliable source), a 'non-sequitor is as follows;

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Some examples in normal speech;

"If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog."
(Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.)

"I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining."
(The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)

Okay, so let's consider my inquiry;

If God always existed, how can He NOT exist?.
The premise is followed by a question, NOT a conclusion, and according to the
example a non-sequitor would be;

''God always exists, therefore He cannot Not exist.''

Would it be a non-sequitor if I inquired (using a wiki example);
''I hear the rain falling outside my window, does this affect the sunshine?

If that last statement is a non-sequitor, then your right, I don't get it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

I've read over the posts made in the past 24 hours, and you continue to come across as a complete loony. You respond to other members with utterly irrelevant responses that always fail to address the very question that was leveled at you , or the criticism of your post. This is nothing more than blatant intellectual dishonesty. People here are trying to engage you in conversation, but you're more interested in a monologue. That being the case, it's literally a contradiction for you to be on this forum.

I don't want a warning, I don't want a temporary ban, and I do not apreciate
that infraction point you slapped on me.
As far as I can see, you are victimising me, and if that gets me warned or banned, then so be it. My conscience is clear.

As far as I'm concerned I am not a complete loony, and my response to other members are not utterly irrelevant.
I started this thread to extract a more in-depth approach to why God exists, and has always existed in the minds of people.
I accept the explanation ''God was an invention by primitive man in a bid to explain natural phenomena such as lightening, death, and so on.
Great, so let's move on, let's see what else there is. This is my approach.

It can easily be shown that God need not be an answer to these occurrances, and it can easily be shown that people accept these occurrences without need to find a reason for them. So to accept this narrow view as the only answer is flat out, wrong IMO.

And of course there is always the prospect that God existed before man, and that the scriptures are correct.

Mod Note:

Jan,

Consider yourself officially Warned.
At the next instance of evasion, equivocation, quid pro quo, or simply ignoring another member's question and/or criticism, you will again be Temp Banned.

Why are you warning me, and why the need to threaten me?
At least point out where I am guilty of these charges instead of this display of big stick weilding.

jan.

 

[wynn]

That's just wrong. If I push a domino, the effect will be greater than the cause.

Not in a Newtonian universe.

Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

If you want to argue for some other kind of universe, then you are in the realm of philosophy and cannot refer to empirical science anymore.

Also, conceiving the idea of perfection is not the same thing as achieving perfection itself. That's like saying humans can't invent the idea of flying because they can't fly.

Humans did not invent the idea of flying. They saw birds and insects in flight.

 

[wynn]

Glaucon -

I would like to see your input on the Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God, which I posted above in post 426.

 

[Rav]

The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

1. We have ideas of many things.

Sure.

2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.

Sure.

3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.

Sure.

4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.

This is where the argument starts to fall apart. The cause and the effect are actually equal because our conception of perfection and the infinite is limited. Just because I can slap the label of "infinite" on the universe (for example) doesn't mean that I can properly (to the fullest extent possible) understand what that means. Similarly just because I can assign the properties of perfection and infinity to some hypothetical "being" doesn't mean I can actually fully comprehend the reality of such a being.

5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.

No, the idea is a limited one and therefore can indeed be born within a limited mind.

6. But only God himself has those qualities.

Using the logic of the argument all we can establish is that this hypothetical being is perfect and infinite only to the extent that we can imagine the reality of such things.

7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.

No, as established above.

8. Therefore God exists.

Fail.

Just as is the case with the standard ontological argument, only a perfect and infinite being could use this argument to prove to itself that it exists because only a perfect and infinite being would be capable of properly conceiving of itself.