and the evidence that you are not just on a different hay ride is ??? — Rank Amateur

Reason, or the best job you can do of it.

Please keep in mind I am by no means at all anti-God or an atheist or even agnostic. I simply reject the particular efforts of foolish people who try with foolish premises and foolish arguments to prove what cannot be proved, and if it were proved, would be without significance i.e. the material existence of God.

Please keep in mind I am by no means at all anti-God or an atheist or even agnostic. I simply reject the particular efforts of foolish people who try with foolish premises and foolish arguments to prove what cannot be proved, and if it were proved, would be without significance i.e. the material existence of God — tim wood

no issue with that.

Please keep in mind I am by no means at all anti-God or an atheist or even agnostic. I simply reject the particular efforts of foolish people who try with foolish premises and foolish arguments to prove what cannot be proved, and if it were proved, would be without significance i.e. the material existence of God. — tim wood

A goal of philosophy is understanding the nature of the universe and that includes understanding if there is a God and the nature of God.

If God exists, there is plenty we can deduce about him:

- https://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/#SH6c
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620

If God exists and revealed Himself to all humanity, because he is our creator, we would recognized him instantly. He has not done so, so, there is no proof that God exists.

My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that. — StaggeringBlow

I think that this perspective is flawed. In order that a human being could recognize God if He revealed Himself, one would have to already have an idea of what God is. Without that idea of what God is, it would be impossible to recognize God, no matter what He did to reveal Himself.

So prior to recognizing God, in His actual existence, we need to understand what God is. This is necessary in order that we could recognize God's actual existence when He reveals Himself to us. And, in order to understand what God is, someone must demonstrate, prove to you, what God is, because you cannot recognize Him based on what He has revealed,.as He cannot reveal Himself to you until you are capable of recognizing Him. So it is necessary that God be proven to you prior to God revealing Himself to you.

If God exists, there is plenty we can deduce about him: — Devans99

Not from his existence. If you think so, go ahead and exhibit your deductions. And spare us what you opine on the subject; just your deductions only.

But we have to have a definition of the term God before we can do any reasoning:

1. God is defined as creator of the universe
2. God exists is given
3. So God created the universe
4. So God must be powerful and intelligent to create the universe
5. And so on (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/255620)

God is not some all powerful thing, it's unfair, that's someone in heaven; where's contradiction to God who gets to be God? Don't you see there are many higher forces, many things in heaven instead. God, if anything, is improperly named because it refers to one, and if you're intelligent on the matter leads to better framework for knowledge of such a type.

I like the joke that the foremost existence is God; that could be one man.

On the multiplicity of God, if there are many things in heaven, they can be traced back in a casual hierarchy of creation to a single creator, who we could then regard as God. Or we could regard the one thing that gave the order for the universe to be created as God.

But we have to have a definition of the term God before we can do any reasoning: — Devans99

Apparently you're one of those people who does not know what the word "definition" means - or what one is. But if you want to start with definitions, you go right ahead. Then connect them if you can to an existing being - that is, a necessary connection. To babble that "if" the universe were created by a being, then that being would have certain aspects, proves nothing. And from the existence of God, none can be deduced. Reason? Your definition is simply a variety of "if." It's that simple. With respect to material reality, definition is constitutive of nothing.

As idea? Sure. But idea is not the topic here.

Another thought, accepting that god exists would also accept that devils and angels also exist. As the saying goes, you can't have one without the others.

Does that make it more complicated to derive anything from the existence of god? If anything can be attributed to god then we should be able to do the same for the rest of them.

Anyone want to describe the devil? :naughty:

The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

For me, the essential question here is "what is existence?". I think that an objects (or a Gods for that matter) existence is its properties. In that case, your exercise would not change if you replaced God with, say, an apple. Whenever I imagine an apple, I see something red, fairly round, delicious, etc. Those qualities are what makes it an apple. In fact, I bet anyone of us would have major difficulties imagining an apple without imagining any of its properties, and the same is true for God. Existence without property is non-existence. Therefore, alone the fact that God exists means that he has properties, and the fact that he has properties (e.g. omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc.) lead to the conclusion that he is relevant to human beings, for instance:

- takes the pressure off life a bit if there is some kind of afterlife (could also be seen as a negative thing)
- helps with finding value in suffering - good for mental health in adversity
- good for mental health to believe that one's innermost centre is indestructible
- helpful in cultivating a sense of oneness with the natural world
- helpful in developing creatively to believe in an inner spontaneous source of newness, and the imperative to create and express
- helpful to believe that death is not the ultimate evil - avoidance of death can result in inauthentic living
- helps in understanding the world as panpsychic — bert1

Those qualities are what makes it an apple. In fact, I bet anyone of us would have major difficulties imagining an apple without imagining any of its properties, — purple-reindeer

Just for the heck of it, what properties does an apple have?

Just for the heck of it, what properties does an apple have? — tim wood

Whenever I imagine an apple, I see something red, fairly round, delicious, etc. — purple-reindeer

These, for instance.

Whenever I imagine an apple, I see something red, fairly round, delicious, etc.
— purple-reindeer
These, for instance. — purple-reindeer

For an imagined apple! The question is, what properties do you say an apple has. It is not a trick question, but you may care to read it carefully and think about it before answering.

I did think about it before answering, it is just that I don't believe that there is any difference between an "imagined" apple with all the properties that a "real" apple has (except for one, that one being empirical detectability) and a "real" apple.
As this problem doesn't even arise in question to God (unless someone believes he is empirically detectable, but in that case he'd be either "real" or have at least one property and ergo he'd be relevant already), the "imagined" God is the "real" God.

I did think about it before answering, it is just that I don't believe that there is any difference between an "imagined" apple with all the properties that a "real" apple has (except for one, that one being empirical detectability) and a "real" apple. — purple-reindeer

All this says is that you did not understand the question even a little bit. Let's try again - because it matters.

Those qualities are what makes it an apple. In fact, I bet anyone of us would have major difficulties imagining an apple without imagining any of its properties, — purple-reindeer

As it happens, I agree with this - and it is why you're not understanding the question.

You aver the apple "has qualities." Now for the third time, if you think an apple, or apples, has "qualities," then be good enough to name a few.

Hint: very likely any quality you name, the apple does not actually have.

All this says is that you did not understand the question even a little bit. — tim wood

If that is so, would you please be so kind as to explain to me what I didn't understand - maybe a bit more respectfully?

For an imagined apple! The question is, what properties do you say an apple has. It is not a trick question, but you may care to read it carefully and think about it before answering. — tim wood

So what you're saying is you're content with the properties I proposed for an apple - an imaginary apple opposed to a "real" apple that is - but when I argue that a real apple is the same as an imaginary apple when it comes to their overall properties

I did think about it before answering, it is just that I don't believe that there is any difference between an "imagined" apple with all the properties that a "real" apple has (except for one, that one being empirical detectability) and a "real" apple. — purple-reindeer

suddenly you don't approve of the properties?

Let's suppose you said the apple is red. Red is one of the qualities that, according to you, the apple has. And we're not concerned with whether this or that apple is red, we acknowledge redness, and that it can apply to apples. But what is it that you imagine redness to be such that the apple has it? This is probably an ancient question, but it irrupts into western philosophy with Hume and Locke and Berkeley and Kant. And I am under the impression that by the time the English address it, it was already old on the continent - maybe someone else can be more precise and accurate on this.

As to respect, you owed it to your topic first. Then, three times you were asked a specific question and still you have not answered. But we seethe with patience and good will, so maybe the fourth time will be the charm. Think through the question of the qualities of objects and exactly wherein those qualities originate. At the least you ought to find that a non-so-simple question to answer. I invite you to try.

Can anyone apart from tim wood explain what he is driving at? I'm lost.

Suppose you have an apple. You describe it. You might say any number of things about it. Firm, crispy, fresh, tart, sweet, reddish, and so on. No complaints so far. This is how the world works, and the world's work gets done this way. But these "qualities" you attribute to this apple are really just perceptions of yours, and when you re-present them in language, it's usually to communicate your perceptions to another person.

But what, exactly, do your perceptions have to do with the apple? Is the apple red? What is red? Red is something that happens in your brain. The apple knows nothing of red, is nothing red. And so on.

Give this a try. It gets a bit tedious, but it's also engaging. Berkeley dialogues.

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/BerkeleyThreeDialogues.pdf

OK, so Berkeleyan idealism is that an object is nothing other than its perceived qualities, if I remember correctly.

So, applying this to God, if that is what you are getting at, if God is to exist then he is nothing other than his perceived qualities. Is that the line of thinking you are trying to elicit?

Pretty damn good! But not quite what I'm about. The idea is that if God can only be perceived qualities, then right there is a good argument for his being nothing at all - but an idea of something. Of course this view is upended if anyone can derive anything from the one thing that a lot of people seem to want, namely his real, material existence. Have at it; the world awaits.

My own view is that the idea of God is very real. And that as idea it also certain powerful and peculiar properties. But first let us satisfy ourselves that the parish-pump idea of the necessity (or even the desirability) of a real existing God can be dispensed with as the immature wishfull thinking that it is. (And that I as well as most people am subject to from time to time.)

Sorry but when you say ''God exists, so what?'' what do you mean by ''God''?

↪tim woodSorry but when you say ''God exists, so what?'' what do you mean by ''God''? — TheMadFool

The idea of this thread is to grant for argument's sake that god exists - undefined. Necessarily undefined. The question, then, is what of it? Not what might be of it, but what, exactly, of it. Or another way: for understanding's sake, what does existence add to the idea of God? (The existence of God may very well subtract from ideas of God; here we're asking what it adds.)

But first let us satisfy ourselves that the parish-pump idea of the necessity (or even the desirability) of a real existing God can be dispensed with as the immature wishfull thinking that it is. — tim wood

In this thread are you trying to address this then? I think that one conception of god has a real physical instantiation. But you won't let me talk about it because I am not allowed a definition of 'God', all I am allowed is his existence. I can't get anywhere with that. And that's not just a problem with God, that's a problem with anything. I can't determine whether horses exist or not if you won't allow me a concept of 'horse'. It's easy to show why. Take a prokkjellyvunt. Do they exist? Well, it's hard to say, until we know what I mean by prokkjellyvunt. Maybe its a matchstick construction that I built on my desk with glue, and I have named it so. Then to show it exists I could take some photos of it and send them to you.

I own the quote, but I can't find it, so lack its context. — tim wood

Check the title of the thread.

Yes. I get a big Duh! for that.

But you won't let me talk about it because I am not allowed a definition of 'God', — bert1

Perhaps you can show how your definition is of something. But then it wouldn't be a definition, would it? It would be an observation. You can define anything you like in any way you like. But then what makes it real and existent? How do you demonstrate that your definition corresponds to a something?

I'm familiar with the following:

1. The cosmoligical argument.
2. The teleological argument
3. The ontological argument

I'd say 1 and 2, if accepted, i.e. God exists, doesn't achieve much because his goodness yet remains unproven.

However, 3. the ontological proof does prove EVERYTHING about God (omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence), after all God is the most perfect being possible in that argument.

Perhaps you can show how your definition is of something. — tim wood

The object of a definition is a word. We define words, not things. The word 'God' definitely exists. And it is trivial to make a definition, (e.g. let 'God' mean that which created the universe), as you say we can define anything any way we like. The more difficult and interesting question is, does the word 'God' (once we have defined it) have a referent?

So, for a quick and dirty example:

Let 'God' be that which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Is there anything which exists that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient?

I think there is, I think space is all these things. Space is certainly omnipresent. If omnipotence is conceived not in terms of 'can do any random sentence with a verb in it' but in terms of 'all the power to act that there is', then space is omnipotent in the sense that it does everything. If omniscience is conceived not in terms of 'knows every proposition' but in terms of 'consciousness being everywhere throughout its being', and it is logically impossible for consciousness to be emergent (as I have argued ad nauseum elsewhere), then space is omniscient.

...therefore the referent of 'God' is space.

------------

In all this I argue from a definition, plus observations/things we already know about, to a conclusion about something's existence. To insist I start with existence and nothing else is strange, and I don't understand why you would do that.