I was not arguing for the real existence of what the concept is a concept of, I was arguing for the real existence of the concept. — MU

Maybe we've crossed the finish line, here, holding hands in complete agreement. One question: by "real existence of the concept" you mean real existence of the concept as a concept, yes? That seems to be what you've exactly and explicitly said above.

And by agreement, I mean more than just the resolution and absence of disagreement. The hows, whys, and wherefores of the real universe I do not expect to understand. It seems to me that for as long as there is even the possibility of something, it's possible to ask how, or why. Even the nothing isn't immune! But as for the possibility of having ideas as answers, and accepting them as regulative in our lives, that seems not merely good and desirable, but even the best we can do. And of course the world of ideas is - can be - flexible and and adaptive. So if you want to resume the agon, we can likely find new areas where you don't yet agree with me.

and the fact that it has been determined as necessary that an immaterial cause is required for material existence — MU

As far as we know, there is no distinction between immaterial and material other than the way the mind perceives it (substantially). It is like trying to draw distinctions between vapor, water, and ice. Fundamentally there isn't any and whichever direction one goes in the spectrum it all remaining the same.

In the same manner, it is possible (probable?) there is no distinction between intelligence, immaterial, and material. It is all part of the spectrum so no need for an external God to explain emergence.

As for the OP, from what I can tell, people embrace the concept of God for hope and for an idea that they can congregate around (socialize). If course, there is a huge industry that can be built around hope including such things as a cure for cancer. Hope is always good business.

God is logically necessary, as the creator of material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, god is logically necessary, as the creator of material existence. What a big difference capitalizing one letter can make.

It is a god of your imagination. Not the living God. Nietzsche killed the God of reason(yes, those who claimed to have faith were often just reasoning) a long time ago. Not to mention Immanuel Kant of course. Who destroyed the idea that you can reason your way to God.

I don't see your point.

Was Nietzche a long time ago? How did he kill the God of reason? Through assertion? If so, how is assertion enough to kill reason?

Not to mention Immanuel Kant of course. Who destroyed the idea that you can reason your way to God. — Beebert

Again, I don't see how Kant destroyed this idea, rather than simply denying it. Destroying logic requires a reasonable demonstration rather than a simple denial.

I don't see your point — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must there be God, instead of god, that created the world?

Which god did you find through reason? You can as easily come up with a conclusion that God does not exist as that he does. Did you find the God of Abraham or the god of the philosophers? By the way, saying that God EXISTS is ridiculous. Everything that exists has a cause, in the sense that exist actually means out of becoming. Something that exists isn't, it becomes. Everything that is, doesn't exist. God IS, if one said that, I would perhaps say 'yes he probably is'. Did you reason your way to a being or a becoming? Nietzsche and Kant proved that reason isn't sufficient for proving any existence of God, god, or gods.

Now mind you, I don't deny the existence of God.

The god of natural reason is a non-god, as Karl Barth said.

All you can know, in reality, is that there isn't necessarily a sun, there is only an eye that sees a sun. I am a subject, an as a subject I am the knower but never the known. What is God to you? Subject or object?
Take the teleological argument for God's existence for example. Now I agree with Kant there; he said we can not know if it is our minds that structures an order or if there is an objective order. Just because we observe harmony and a structure, doesn't mean there necessarily IS a harmony and a structure.

Why must there be God, instead of god, that created the world? — BlueBanana

Because "God" is the word used to refer to the creator, not "god", it's just a matter of proper English.

Which god did you find through reason? You can as easily come up with a conclusion that God does not exist as that he does. Did you find the God of Abraham or the god of the philosophers? By the way, saying that God EXISTS is ridiculous. Everything that exists has a cause, in the sense that exist actually means out of becoming. Something that exists isn't, it becomes. Everything that is, doesn't exist. God IS, if one said that, I would perhaps say 'yes he probably is'. Did you reason your way to a being or a becoming? Nietzsche and Kant proved that reason isn't sufficient for proving any existence of God, god, or gods. — Beebert

That's a lot of questions, but let me start with the first one. What do you mean by which god did you find? I think I found the God referred to by the word "God", the one responsible for creating material existence.

The god of natural reason is a non-god, as Karl Barth said. — Beebert

What do you mean by "the god of natural reason"?

Because "God" is the word used to refer to the creator, not "god", it's just a matter of proper English. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, god can mean either the creator or a god that did not create the world. God with G refers to the Abrahamic God, not any god that created the world.

What I mean is like this basically. If I can imagine a perfectly straight line, a perfect circle etc, does that mean that they exist? Did Achilles catch up and run past the turtle? If no, then one can not prove God by natural reason, that is, by thinking one self to some sort of proof of his existence just because man's logical mind and reason says he exists. Because clearly, Achilles did in reality run past the turtle. If you say yes, then all I answer is that everything is possible. The existence of God is likely. I don't deny it. But I would say that our conscience is the thing that most points to his possible existence, not our reason and logic. So if you say; "I can prove God exists", I would answer "No."

If no, then one can not prove God by natural reason, that is, by thinking one self to some sort of proof of his existence just because man's logical mind and reason says he exists. — Beebert

If you can prove with logic, that God must exist, but this doesn't count as an acceptable proof of God's existence, then it follows that anything which you prove with logic cannot be an acceptable proof, because proving with logic is not an acceptable proof. So for you, what is an acceptable proof?

Using Reason, the best, most probable, God we can come up with is a circular argument. The goal of an apologist is not to make God rational, but to justify irrationality.

The pantheist God (aka the Tao of Lao Tzu) is. Even saying that much is misleading. Tao is all of existence, a sum of an infinite number of infinite parts. It is not a personal God; it is not responsible for our existence so much as we can only exist as finite particles of it. God exists: A=A This is the meaning of the duality present in the symbolism of the yin-yang, and in all of existence. There is Being -- yang -- (the sum of all existence) and there is Nothingness -- yin -- (a indescribable Void that cannot be named).

Yes, this is a circular argument, but I have not found a more convincing one.

Nice one Dwit, welcome to tpf. One question though, how can something infinite consist of finite parts? Consider numbers for example. There is an infinite number, but at the same time each one is infinitely divisible, so the parts are not finite. And if we consider finite things, like physical objects, we might just say off-handedly that there is an infinite number of them, but is this really possible?

Thanks for the welcome.

The universe itself is not divisible, so Tao is infinite. We can't talk about Half the Universe with the same assuredness that we can talk about the Universe itself. But it is a sum, and this sum is Reality..The evidence of the sum is the use of direct opposites to give the yin and the yang meaning. The Taoist universe is dualistic. Everything that exists -- the active principle of the Universe -- is yang. It is bound by yin, aka. Nothingness. What this means is that the universe is both singular and dual; infinite and finite.

What we can say about one thing is different than what we can say about two. A thing taken by itself is infinite, whereas a thing taken as part of a whole is finite.

As I said, "Tao is all of existence, a sum of an infinite number of infinite parts." This is a tautology, a circular argument. This is because I treated "Tao" as a thing, and not as the Everything. People make the same mistake when they talk about God.

By itself, a thing is finite, and I merely repeated that when I said "the sum of an infinite number of infinite parts" -- a sum being also finite. It's all just A=A.

Thanks for making it explicit..

You can just as much prove with logic that God doesn't exist. Logic, just as reason, rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world, that is on the assumption that there are equal things, that the same thing is identical at different points in time: but this science arose as a result of the opposite belief; that such things actually exist in the real world.