Why do you think that?
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree with much of the above, but IMO, by the law of *Necessity and Sufficiency* sentience or emotion is not required for *function*.
Is it *necessary* that God is concerned about everything, in addition to being *sufficient* and *functional*, or would it be *sufficient* that the Godhead (Wholeness) is just *functional*?
Last edited:
I know what.
You said: I can suggest lots of equally-good-as-each-other sources [information about God].
What sources?
jan.
Is it necessary that you are ultimately concerned about your body in addition to it being ''sufficient and functional, or would it be sufficient that the body is just functional.
jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The Universe needs to be maintained by God to remain functional? What would you count as regular maintenance; changing the oil? Tightening an orbit? An occasional miracle (just to stay in shape)?
Or are you saying God needs to be maintained for it to function? Does prayer help to maintain God?
Last edited:
"law of necessity and sufficiency"? What would that be then?
Or are you merely trying to state that emotion is not necessary for function? If so, this is not determined by any law of necessity and sufficiency but by simple logical deduction: there exist things with function that do not have emotion, thus emotion is not necessary for function.
I'm sure I understand your use of "sufficient" here? Sufficient for what?
Jan only thinks the teapot analogy works in cases in which he can use it to his benefit... which is none of them. To wit, I have never seen Jan accept the analogy as anything other than either childish and/or insulting, and at no point has he ever gone on to look at the actual argument behind the analogy.
In other words, as soon as you raise it as an analogy to argue a point, Jan will use it to avoid discussing that point.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, but I'm sure you have read Jan's banal deflection of the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient_statistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
ok, let's get it clear that I am an atheist. But I tried to place myself in Jan's shoes. The question was in context of Jan's motivated functional God. You have read his answers. Pose your question to him. He is the one *running around the rosie, pocket full of posies*
Last edited:
It is different when they don't adhere to the other aspects you are referring to. Yes, you can be arrogant and simply assume that they are not understanding those other aspects, and thus claim they are still the same single concept, but you would be wrong... the concepts can often be mutually exclusive: you might say that an aspect is benevolence, and another says that their concept has no such aspect. Thus the concepts are different.
So you believe of your concept.
And by "your" I am simply differentiating between the one you adhere to and the different ones that others may adhere to. I am not implying that you are the originator of your concept nor that it is uniquely yours. Simply it is the one you advocate, and thus it is "yours".
No. Some properties only exhibit with certain levels of complexity. God, as "the Complete Whole" is necessarily the simplest state, but from which complexity can arise. That does not mean that the simple state has all the properties of the more complex.
But you have a specific concept of God, and it can and does differ to the concept of God that others might have. You might think them wrong, or only partially correct, but their concept is different to yours, even if you believe, as you do, that your concept is correct.
And since your concept can be different to others', any proof of God that you wish to put forward would be with regard your concept. It might also work as a proof for other concepts, but you would be presenting it first and foremost as a proof of your concept.
Not all concepts of God have scriptures as their source of information. Some concepts of God are specifically non-revelatory (deism etc).
So by insisting upon the scriptures as the source for information on the notion of God we are already looking at just one subset of notions labelled "God".
If God does not exist then God is an unnecessary hypothesis. And for those that do not know whether God exists or not, well, we should never posit necessity, rather it should be concluded.
It's a good question, but perhaps for another thread, as it has little bearing on the "proof of God".
Fallacy of composition. If you assign a property to the whole simply because a manifestation of part exhibits that property then you seem to be saying that water on this earth is all frozen... And all liquid... And all gaseous.
What you seem to miss is the notion that the whole can be any of those things, not that it necessarily is.
When two people label different things the same, then it gets confusing and clarification is sought. Your notion of God is demonstrably different to the notion others may have.
So you believe.
To differentiate it from the notion of God that others may hold while using the same sources.
And such a start should not assume existence a priori. Can you do that? Or will you start from a "cause of all causes" or other such definition that tries to sneak God's necessity into the assumptions?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK thanks a lot, Jan. I've snipped a lot of your individual line by line responses, since that is a style of dialogue that I have found rapidly gets bogged down in detail and extraneous side issues, while losing the main thread. I've focused on two passages in your response, which I have numbered [1] and [2].
Also (on the same principle, i.e. of not starting multiple hares running at once) you can take this post of mine as being a combined response to both of your most recent responses to me.
Regarding [1], thank you very much. That gives me a far better understanding of your idea of God and how it is you think you can prove that God exists.
Since, in your view, the material world is the body of God, and the existence of that is not in doubt, the points at issue will be first whether it means anything to label the material world as the "body of God" and second for you to prove the existence of those other aspects of God which you claim also exist. I'll be intrigued to see how you approach those aspects.
Regarding [2], I think this question is arse about face (not the first time you have done this). You do not make a hypothesis when you already have confirmation of it. You make a hypothesis when you think something may be the case and wish to explore whether there is evidence supporting the hypothesis.
For example, take the Higgs boson. It would be pointless to say, "If the Higgs boson exists, then there is a need for the hypothesis of the Higgs boson." I mean, how stupid you would look (and be!) if you were to say that.
The the way it generally works is that you have some objective evidence that you want to explain and you form a hypothesis that could potentially do this. In the Higgs case, the mathematics that accounts for what we observe in particle physics leads to certain problems that would be resolved if there were this extra field (said Prof. Higgs) that ought to manifest itself in this particle, with such-and-such properties. So that was his hypothesis, with predictions that could be tested, and then the experimenters went hunting for it - and eventually found it: Nobel prize for the prof.
What people like Dave and I are saying to you is we are unaware of any objective evidence that would lead to the need for a hypothesis which it would be helpful to call "God". I mean, I suppose we could have said, arbitrarily, that the Higgs field could be called "God". In fact some newspapers called the Higgs boson the "God particle", for a bit. But, given the huge cultural baggage surrounding the term "God", would this be a helpful to do? Where, for example would we go if a new even more fundamental field or particle were to be discovered? A bit hard to dream up another term, for something even more fundamental than God, isn't it?
So to come back to your question, I do not know why anyone would say flatly, "God does not exist." Even Dawkins, I gather, now recognises he cannot logically say that. But what he, and Dave, and I, could say is that there seems to be no evidence to support a hypothesis that it would be sensible to call "God".
Further, it might be reasonable, in normal conversational shorthand, for that rather philosophically careful statement to be contracted to: "I do not believe that God exists".
Last edited:
I have.
Apologies, didn't mean to be antagonistic.
I know what the terms mean, and was sure you do, but Jan struggles with logic, and his response was baffling in its use of the terms. So was hoping you might be able to shed some light on that exchange as I'd get nothing meaningful from him. It was more to see what angle you were coming from with regards sufficiency (having agreed that emotion is not necessary for function).
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No offense taken and the question was posed to test Jan's logic.I have.
Apologies, didn't mean to be antagonistic.
I know what the terms mean, and was sure you do, but Jan struggles with logic, and his response was baffling in its use of the terms. So was hoping you might be able to shed some light on that exchange as I'd get nothing meaningful from him. It was more to see what angle you were coming from with regards sufficiency (having agreed that emotion is not necessary for function).
Does that clarify my use of the Law of Necessity and Sufficiency and the logical implication of Jan's answer?.......... "ultimate concern"?
Last edited:
I didn't say it was my view, I used this analogy to show the difference between personal, and impersonal.
So an ''unnecessary hypothesis'' is when you think something may be the case and wish to explore whether there is evidence supporting the hypothesis, but is not needed. Right?
So if such an hypothesis is unnecessary, why take part in a discussion where you vocalize the non existence of a mere hypothesis that isn't necessary?
''God'' is simply a word used to basically describe a Supreme Being that is responsible for the material world. In that sense the word itself is not helpful to me either.
You seem to bypass every link and quote I produce regarding what God is, some of them I'm sure are quite new to you. Yet your questions and inquiries only focus on what you think I believe. I don't think you want to know if God exists or not. I think you are quite satisfied and content with your current position.
It might be reasonable for you.
jan.
Last edited:
Your body needs to be maintained by you to remain functional?
Do you concern yourself with every atom?
How do you know your body is being maintained, even if you aren't personally doing anything?
Would you be alive and well if your body was completely run down through lack of maintainance?
Again, use your own situation to draw conclusion.
jan.
If you're using logic to find out if you're understanding of God is logical, then you're always going to come up trumps.
Especially if you only pick and choose what you think the characteristics of God are.
You only need to go to that thread about the KCA.
Exactly why do you think God does or could not possess intelligence?
jan.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yesterday, you offered the following "analysis" of your chosen definition of God (i.e. the "Complete Whole" text):
"It's not different, it's just a different aspect.
The impersonal side of God, is like the body of a person.
The body seemingly acts of its own accord, only needing maintenance at certain intervals.
The body only acts that way because of the person (life force). Once the person is gone, the body ceases to act.
The impersonalists do not recognize the person (at least until Adi Shankara).
The material world is basically the body of God, this can be understood by the links and quotes I gave."
Are you now saying the bolded statement is not your view? Is it, then, someone else's view that you are reciting, without attribution? Whose, then? Or is it your interpretation of the text, but you are now saying you do not agree with that text - even though you have just proposed it as a definition of God?
Regarding hypotheses, you are ceasing to make sense at all. Two points: (i) an unnecessary hypothesis is one for which there is no evidence that the hypothesis would help account for; (ii) as to why I should take part in the discussion, you also said something similar to Dave, as if by questioning the idea that is the subject of this thread, we are somehow disqualified from participating in it! How preposterous.
I have already explained several times why I think it is essential that you explain what you mean by God, before you attempt to prove God exists. Quoting obscure texts without interpretation will not do. And nor will offering explanations of what the text means, and then disavowing that explanation.
As to your question about my own views on what "God" means, and whether or not I am satisfied with them, this is neither here nor there because you are the one offering a proof of God's existence, not me.
How about getting started on this proof: what is step one?
Later footnote: By the way I see in the course of this you have offered another definition of "God", viz. "A supreme being that is responsible for the material world". I quite like that, actually. Would you prefer to use that definition for the proof? Perhaps that would get us all away from all this "Complete Whole" stuff, which I have to say seems like impenetrable woo to me.
Last edited:
No, I'm not saying that. I've already said what I've said.
Does it matter if it is somebody else's view? If so, why?
What does it mater if it is my view?
Does that exclude me from offering it as an independent analogy?
If so, why?
What does it matter if it is the view of another person, or persons ?
The trouble is, you're not questioning the idea of the subject of this thread. Dave as already stated that God does not exist, and you don't seem interested at all. You only seem interested in questioning me ,and not looking into the subject matter itself.
But more importantly, I didn't state that either of you should be disqualified from participating in this thread. I was curious as to why Dave would be interested in discussing something that does not exist (by his addmission).
I have explained what I mean by God.
I have explained why scripture is the best source of information.
I have given my interpretation of the text.
I have done so without the need to express my belief.
I do deny using my belief as an explanation of any text or comment about God.
While I may believe the analogies I use, those analogies are capable of standing on their own feet.
IOW no belief is necessary.
Do we agree on what God is (in spite of what we believe or not)?
If not, can you explain to me what God is, again despite belief or lack of?
jan.
It's not a matter of "does or could not" but of not necessarily doing so. You do comprehend necessity in this context, I assume?
If it is not necessary then to claim that God does possess intelligence requires some explanation as to why it should be accepted that God does rather than does not.
If you are claiming that it is necessary for God to possess intelligence, likewise let's hear the argument for that necessity.
However, since this thread is about proof of God, maybe you want to take it a stage further and not only provide convincing argument for God possessing intelligence (whether necessary or not) but actually prove that God does?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
[/QUOTE]
Obviously not. Since you refuse to espouse any of the statements you have made about what God is, there is nothing for me to agree with.