It is a conceptual truth that a mind who exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent 'is' God. — Bartricks

Your premise of "God" is very similar to that of Plotinus and his "One":

"there is a supreme, totally transcendent" One ", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. The" One "" cannot be any existing thing ", nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents"."

The problem is that your concept of "God", filtered from all cultural and regional interpretations, only refers to the "Absolute". And as Plotinus had already stated:

"Once you have uttered 'The One', add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

Therefore, your conclusion that "God" exists, concluded that something exists, but the possibility of it being "God" is non-existent because your thesis is existing and capable of being conceived.

Thems is rules such as "do an act if doing so will serve your ends and won't violate another rule of reason" and "be nice" and "believe in the truth of the conclusions of sound arguments" and so on.

Yeah, so which one is that? Yours is a descriptive attribution; but which deity (of any religious tradition!) answers to that description (i.e. (your) 'tri-omni deity' refers to ... Brahman? Cthulhu? Wotan? Jupiter? Tezcatlipoca? Allah? ...)

Your premise of "God" is very similar to that of Plotinus and his "One": — Gus Lamarch

God is in the conclusion, not a premise.

I see no real similarity. I think you're seeing Plotinus everywhere. Just because you have a hammer, that doesn't mean everything's a nail.

God. Reason is not strong in this one.

↪180 Proof God. — Bartricks

Yeah, so which one is that? Yours is a descriptive attribution; but which deity (of any religious tradition!) answers to that description (i.e. (your) 'tri-omni deity' refers to ... Brahman? Cthulhu? Wotan? Jupiter? Tezcatlipoca? Allah? The Force? ...)

I think you're seeing Plotinus everywhere. — Bartricks

But of course! Your argument is completely identical to that of Plotinus - even if you had never heard of him -.

Your conclusions were made more than a 1000 years ago, and we now know that they are wrong.

God. Reason is not strong in this one. — Bartricks

Agreed.

Thems is rules such as "do an act if doing so will serve your ends and won't violate another rule of reason" and "be nice" and "believe in the truth of the conclusions of sound arguments" and so on. — Bartricks

Man, this is so vague. This point is the core of you post, you should have a more solid description of the laws of Reason. Which are those? I guess those are universal and well known by all the societies, it is just that I've missed them anyhow.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. God. There's only one.

Plotinus did not make the argument I just made.

If you think there's a problem with the argument, use your extensive knowledge to highlight it.

If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

How does a mind create laws of reason?

The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omniscient — Bartricks

What does an omniscient mind do? It would be pointless for example for such a thing to think.

The mind whose instructions and commands constitute the laws of Reason would not be bound by those laws, as they have the power over their content. — Bartricks

A mind not bound by the laws of reason cannot be reasoned about.

I just gave you some. Their precise content is a matter of debate, but their existence is not. You can't do philosophy without having to accept their existence, for in doing philosophy we are wondering what Reason bids us believe. I mean, obviously very few people here 'are' doing philosophy. But I am.

Can God do anything?

Yes, god can tie off loose ends, and plug in gaps in theories! God is truly omnipotent in this regard. :smile:

How does a mind create laws of reason? — InPitzotl

By wanting us to do and believe things and by ordering or instructing us to do so.

Here's a law of Bartricks: if you have money, give me money. Not one many know about, and it doesn't have any authority over people, because most people recognise that Reason does not tell everyone to obey my rules. But that's a law of mine, it is just one that nobody obeys. How did I create it? Well, I wanted everyone's money and I just told everyone - or did my best by writing it above - to give me their money.

What does an omniscient mind do? It would be pointless for example for such a thing to think. — InPitzotl

Well, clearly one of the things he wants is for us to do and believe things, hence the instructions of Reason exist. As for it being pointless for him to think - I don't see how you get to that conclusion. Indeed, it's confused - for what is it for something to be pointless except for there to be no reason to do it? Whatever Reason thinks, there is reason for Reason to think, for a reason to think something is no more or less than a desire of Reason that it be thought.

A mind not bound by the laws of reason cannot be reasoned about. — InPitzotl

Yes it can. See above. I am not bound by what I say, but I can nevertheless tell people about myself. Likewise for Reason. Think it through!!

If you think there's a problem with the argument, use your extensive knowledge to highlight it. — Bartricks

The error is getting to the conclusion. If we are talking of the same God, it cannot be comprehended by mortal minds, therefore, any conclusion about it, it's not about it, but of something else.

"God is absolute, therefore, this phrase is not about God, because if it was, then God was not absolute, therefore, it would not be God."

I mean, obviously very few people here 'are' doing philosophy. But I am — Bartricks

Chapeau!

A law of Reason is an imperative or instruction to do or believe something. — Bartricks

So, by the way you define a law of Reason, there is a God. In other words, as you've noted, instructions presuppose an instructor. If the bone of contention is whether or not God exists, you've assumed precisely what needs to be better argued for, proven, and/or justified.

I repeat: where is the error? Don't just express your conviction that I have made one. Where is it? Have I reasoned fallaciously - if so, where? And if I have not, are my any of my premises false? If so, which one and why?

Here's a law of Bartricks: if you have money, give me money.. — Bartricks

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. That's a nice hypothetical example of your issuing a prescriptive imperative using the English language to another sentient entity who speaks English over a virtual medium via text, but how does a mind create a law of reason?

Well, clearly one of the things he wants is for us to do and believe things, hence the instructions of Reason exist. — Bartricks

That does not follow. I believe there is a yellow crayon in this box sticking out just to the left of an orange crayon, and I use reasoning to believe it, but it's not clear that I followed an instruction. I tend to think I just looked at the box.

As for it being pointless for him to think - I don't see how you get to that conclusion. — Bartricks

Well for example if I divide two numbers in my head, I might carry out the operations to figure out what the quotient is. An omniscient entity would presumably simply know; so there's no point doing the thinking. If I were playing chess, I might plan ahead. But again, an omniscient entity would presumably just know all moves, so there's no point in thinking. It's easy to say there's an all knowing mind, but such a thing is so alien to how minds work, it's questionable whether or not it even is one.

Yes it can. See above. I am not bound by what I say, but I can nevertheless tell people about myself. Likewise for Reason. Think it through!! — Bartricks

The mind not limited by reason could command reason and irrationality both. You would have no way of describing by reason any violation of reason commanded by this entity. Could this mind command that 1+1=3? And if so, how can you be sure he didn't? Pretty sure the only way you could be sure such a mind only commands reason is by applying a doctrine, and if you're applying doctrines you're not applying reason.

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. That's a nice hypothetical example of your issuing a prescriptive imperative using the English language to another sentient entity who speaks English over a virtual medium via text, but how does a mind create a law of reason? — InPitzotl

Sorry, but I did. You accept, I take it, that I did what I did: I, a mind, issued an instruction to you. I'll do it again "Give me all your money!" That's a command, yes? And I - a mind - created it.

So now we know that minds can create commands and that they can communicate this fact to other minds, like wot I did.

The imperatives of Reason are commands. That's just what an imperative is. They're not my commands or yours. But they are commands. And we know how imperatives get made: minds make them. Therefore, they are the commands of a mind.

And we know that commands can be communicated, for I just communicated one to you. So, as we are aware - some very dimly, and some barely at all - of these imperatives of Reason, we know that the mind whose commands the imperatives of Reason are, has found a way of communicating them to us.

What means? Well, we call it our faculty of reason, don't we?

That does not follow. I believe there is a yellow crayon in this box sticking out just to the left of an orange crayon, and I use reasoning to believe it, but it's not clear that I followed an instruction. I tend to think I just looked at the box. — InPitzotl

It does follow. If commands express the desires of a mind, and there are commands of Reason, then those commands express the desires of a mind.

As for your example, it's an example of something else. For what you describe is a visual experience causing in you a belief, without any inferential activity on your part. So you did not 'use' reason to acquire the belief. That doesn't stop the belief from being justified, of course, for Reason, God, may still favor you having acquired the belief in that manner.
If, however, you have 'reasoned' to the conclusion, then you would have considered yourself favored by Reason believing that there is a crayon sticking out of the box.

I don't think you fully grasp what i've done. The existence of God is what the argument 'concludes'. It is not asserted in any premise.

I defined God, as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. But that definition does not assert the existence of such a being.

I defined laws of Reason as imperatives and/or instructions. And I showed how there is no reasonable way of denying their reality. And I noted that imperatives and instructions require a mind to issue them.

And then I showed how the mind in question would satisfy the definition of God and would, in addition, exist.

That's a proof of God's existence. The problem is that you have a dogmatic belief that there is no such proof, yes? Plus you think that all valid arguments are just bunches of assertions and they prove nothing, yes? That way you get to believe whatever you want and you don't have ever to revise your views in light of reason.

Anyway, enough analysis of your foolishness: how about you actually address the argument I made rather than make false accusations?

Sorry, but it did. You accept, I take it, that I did what I did: I, a mind, issued an instruction to you. — Bartricks

That was a prescription given in a language. Reason is surely descriptive.

As for your example, it's an example of something else. — Bartricks

What else?

For what you describe is a visual experience causing in you a belief, without any inferential activity on your part. — Bartricks

There's quite a bit of sapience required to relate the visual experience to such things as colors sticking out of a box and their spatial relations.

That was a prescription given in a language. Reason is surely descriptive. — InPitzotl

No. A description of an imperative is a description, of course. And if by 'Reason' you mean 'a description of all of Reason's imperatives" then yes, that's a description. But I am clearly referring to the imperatives themselves.

There are different ways to express the same point. Reality has a normative aspect to it, yes? That. That's what I'm talking about. The norms of Reason. They're norms, right? Directives, prescriptions, commands, instructions.

Those require a commander.

I didn't understand the rest of what you said

But I am clearly referring to the imperatives themselves. — Bartricks

And I'm questioning whether laws of reasoning are imperatives.

If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

Why? Why must a law be housed in someone's mind somewhere? Did the law of gravity not exist before Newton discovered it?

The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omnibenevolent. — Bartricks

?

So you are denying that you ought to draw the conclusion of a sound argument?

And what, pray, are philosophers talking about when they talk about the imperatives of Reason?

And what are you following when you reason, if not some kind of directive?

I explained. The laws of Reason are prescriptive laws, not descriptive. That's why you can flout them.

A directive requires a mind to issue it. Take this "give me all your money!" If I'm a bot, is that a directive? No. If I'm a mind, then it is. If I'm not, then it isn't.

So you are denying that you ought to draw the conclusion of a valid argument? — Bartricks

Nope. I'm denying that someone must be commanding the laws I use to do so.

And what are you following when you reason, if not some kind of directive? — Bartricks

Certainly not instructions someone gave me in English. Except in those cases where they did, but in all such cases those were simply minds of one or more other humans. Imperatives and instructions are things humans convey to each other using language.