things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to exist, whereas anything which, ‘through the excellence of its nature’ (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to exist. He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam).'
An affirmation concerning the lower (order) is a negation concerning the higher, and so too a negation concerning the lower (order) is an affirmation concerning the higher.
According to this analysis, the affirmation of man is the negation of angel and vice versa.
’what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary. — Wayfarer
In other words, the concept of 'existence' cannot be univocally applied to beings on different levels of the hierarchy ('great chain of being'). — Wayfarer
‘What exists’ is necessarily dependent on everything else and necessarily transitory in nature. ‘The source of what exists’ is contingent upon whatever need one is trying to fulfill, such as the need for meaning. — praxis
Don't be shy 180. Argue that God does not exist!!!!
— 3017amen
Careful what you ask for!
I'm getting my notebook and popcorn ready! — tim wood
Based on the sum total of my experiences (which may not coincide with yours) I have sufficient evidence of connectivity which transcends the domain of ordinary scientific discourse. — Pantagruel
Trivially, neural networks operate by leveraging 'hidden dimensions' of connectivity also, so while this may not rise to the standard of scientific proof, it is evidence, nevertheless. — Pantagruel
And I certainly extend my hypothesis to include the strong possibility of there being forms of consciousness far more advanced and therefore toto caelo unlike ours. Possibly not limited in space and time like ours. And I conceive this to be 'close enough' to the most general form of the notion of God — Pantagruel
As was said, it all depends how you define "God," doesn't it? — Pantagruel
Accordingly, this source of order cannot be said to be something that exists, because existing things (1) have a beginning and an end in time and (2) are composed of parts. — Wayfarer
What I'm trying to explain is that the 'God' that atheism says doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, but that this doesn't validate atheism. Mainly it’s a straw god argument with which Internet forums abound. — Wayfarer
It would seem to me that if there is a source of order, and the source of order does not have a beginning or end in time, and it's not composed of parts, then existent things do not necessarily have a beginning or end in time and are not necessarily composed of parts — Terrapin Station
Can you name any such thing? — Wayfarer
Great !! So far I'm up on the Atheist 3-0 and counting LOL — 3017amen
An important point from classical theology - that God does not exist, or rather, surpasses existence, and so cannot be said to exist or not to exist. — Wayfarer
Ergo, belief in God is not a belief about something that exists or doesn't exist. It's a belief about the meaning of what exists. A theistic philosophy posits that the nature of the Universe is such that it means or implies the reality of a source of order which cannot itself be understood on the level of phenomena. — Wayfarer
Accordingly, this source of order cannot be said to be something that exists, because existing things (1) have a beginning and an end in time and (2) are composed of parts. (Any objectors, please provide an example of something existing that doesn't satisfy those conditions); and also because 'what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary. — Wayfarer
In your case, you contradicted yourself on the topic of Purpose — 3017amen
And secondly, you didn't understand basic deductive/formal logic in defending your claim that God doesn't exist. — 3017amen
You contradicted yourself from your earlier statement that there is no purpose. Then you said human's have goals. — 3017amen
Then on your next point. I might be mistaken, but if you're claiming God does not exist in a proposition, you have to defend it. — 3017amen
Your point alludes to cosmology. I'm talking consciousness/cognitive science. So, can you answer why human's have purpose and why that's important? — 3017amen
We're at an impasse. You are not answering the existential question about the why's of existence. — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.