God and Philosophy

[32-20-Blues]

I recently heard a philosophy student whom I am friendly with explain her disbelief in God with the following logical progression:

According to the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, God is everywhere.

This means that God is in this room right now.

Can you see him? No.

Can you hear him? No.

Can you smell him? No.

Can you touch him? No.

With this in mind, how does the state of God being present differ from the state of him not being present?

It doesn't.

This, for her, is enough not to believe.

[Nicole_Rose]

but if as has been claimed by the religious, God is ALWAYS present, how does one know what the state of his absence is like? so how can one say that his presence and absence are the same?

[andyhix]

Originally Posted by 32-20-Blues

I recently heard a philosophy student whom I am friendly with explain her disbelief in God with the following logical progression:

According to the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, God is everywhere.

This means that God is in this room right now.

Can you see him? No.

Can you hear him? No.

Can you smell him? No.

Can you touch him? No.

With this in mind, how does the state of God being present differ from the state of him not being present?

It doesn't.

This, for her, is enough not to believe.

Does she also not believe in electromagnetic energy, and fine particulate matter?

Edit: you don't really have to answer that. I'm just being a smart ass.

[32-20-Blues]

Originally Posted by andyhix

Does she also not believe in electromagnetic energy, and fine particulate matter?

Edit: you don't really have to answer that. I'm just being a smart ass.

No, I'll bite. The absence of electromagnetic energy isn't the same as the presence of it, because its presence can be measured.

Not that much of a smart ass. J/K

[32-20-Blues]

Originally Posted by Nicole_Rose

but if as has been claimed by the religious, God is ALWAYS present, how does one know what the state of his absence is like? so how can one say that his presence and absence are the same?

Well, I would contend that the state of his absence is interchangable with the state of his presence, since when present he is unquantifiable in every sense.

On the basis that his presence is intangible - or unquantifiable - in every way, God always being present isn't manifestly different to him not being present.

[legionserial]

To reiterate my stance in a post in the other thread..

The stories in the bible, IMO, are just that. Stories. Stories with a moral and a message. We aren't supposed to take them too literally. But we do, and we end up beleiving in magic powers, hierarchies etc etc. When you take them literally, they are going to conflict, because it is my beleif that they weren't intended to be taken that way.

My interpretation is that to get to heaven, or utopia, we need to be good to each other. But heaven is not a place you get to. It isn't something that happens when you die. The idea is for it to happen during your life. If everyone was good to each other, if everyone looked after each other, we wouldn't have to worry about getting into heaven, we'd already be there.

Heaven is a place you have to make.

Yes, god exists, in a way. He exists in the minds of those that beleive in him. His power is merely the belief in him acting as a catalyst for self belief. I'm all for that. I've seen faith save lives. People don't want to believe that they alone have the power to turn their life around, to save their life, to overcome difficulty. So they let their own power manifest itself anthropomorphically, as a deity.

But there is a point where it gets silly. And people start believing in all the fire and brimstone crap. Beleif in another source of positive energy is good. Believe in hell, fire and brimstone, and eternal damnation, the original sin, all that negative depressing crap is pointless. I think it's dumb.

Positive = good. Negative = bad. That's why I have problems with Catholicism, because it copncentrates so much on the negative aspects.

[apl]

Originally Posted by 32-20-Blues

With this in mind, how does the state of God being present differ from the state of him not being present?

That's begging the question. To answer it you'd have to come up with a God-detector of some sort, and if it worked and you didn't find God then you'd prove He existed because there was a unique attribute of His you'd be measuring, and if it did find God, well, you found God.

Therefore asking the question without trying to answer it is intentioinally presupposing there is no God.

[Nicole_Rose]

Originally Posted by 32-20-Blues

Well, I would contend that the state of his absence is interchangable with the state of his presence, since when present he is unquantifiable in every sense.

On the basis that his presence is intangible - or unquantifiable - in every way, God always being present isn't manifestly different to him not being present.

for a long time oxygen in the air was unquantifiable. does that mean it didn't exist until we learned how to prove it's presence and measure it?

[lucky13]

Originally Posted by apl

That's begging the question. To answer it you'd have to come up with a God-detector of some sort, and if it worked and you didn't find God then you'd prove He existed because there was a unique attribute of His you'd be measuring, and if it did find God, well, you found God.

Therefore asking the question without trying to answer it is intentioinally presupposing there is no God.

I understand this analogy. You would prove the existence of god even if you didn't find him with this device because in order for the device to work there has to be some attribute of god for it to measure. What I don;t understand is when i'm talking to someone and I tell them I don't believe in god, they tell me that by making that statement I'm actually confirming my belief in him. Do you know what they're talking about, and could you explain that logic? It sounds like some sort of Orwellian doublespeak to me.

[32-20-Blues]

Originally Posted by apl

That's begging the question. To answer it you'd have to come up with a God-detector of some sort, and if it worked and you didn't find God then you'd prove He existed because there was a unique attribute of His you'd be measuring, and if it did find God, well, you found God.

Therefore asking the question without trying to answer it is intentioinally presupposing there is no God.

It's raising a question that begs an answer, certainly. I do not, however, under the terms I have set out, need to prove God's presence, or lack thereof.

Rather, I can point out that under the criteria laid down by both the Catechism (He is everywhere) and human experience (you can't see him, etc), there is no difference between him being there and him not being there.

Whether he is there or not, is for another day (and that's when your God detecting machine comes into play). At the moment, I can say that there is no difference between him being there and not.

[32-20-Blues]

Originally Posted by Nicole_Rose

for a long time oxygen in the air was unquantifiable. does that mean it didn't exist until we learned how to prove it's presence and measure it?

Well people were breathing back then, so it existed.

[Nicole_Rose]

Originally Posted by 32-20-Blues

Well people were breathing back then, so it existed.

yeah, i was saying that just because we can't quantify God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. there's a lot of things we haven't been able to quantify until long after we theorized their existence so i would find that argument too weak to base a belief or lack of it on.

[TelePaul]

I know god exists because I've seen him

[apl]

Originally Posted by lucky13

What I don't understand is when i'm talking to someone and I tell them I don't believe in god, they tell me that by making that statement I'm actually confirming my belief in him. Do you know what they're talking about, and could you explain that logic? It sounds like some sort of Orwellian doublespeak to me.

I don't understand it either. Not believing in unicorns doesn't confirm their existence.

They were probably referring to ontological proofs, but I don't find them very compelling.

[32-20-Blues]

Originally Posted by apl

They were probably referring to ontological proofs, but I don't find them very compelling.

Neither do I.

Although I have been faced with the argument in the past.

Can I ask, apl, did you always have faith, since you were younger, or did it come to you over time? Or, was the realisation sudden?

For some reason, I can't decide to believe. Does that make sense?

[The Ghost of FM]

Thank you for calling Universal Management Services.

God is unavailable to take your call at this time as he is experiencing higher then normal call volumes.

If you know the extension you wish to reach, please enter it now.

For god, press 18

For Jesus, press 007

For Buddha, Press his bellybutton.

And for Satan, press 666

Your call may be monitored to ensure quality care.

Goodbye!

[brendandwyer]

Originally Posted by lucky13

I understand this analogy. You would prove the existence of god even if you didn't find him with this device because in order for the device to work there has to be some attribute of god for it to measure. What I don;t understand is when i'm talking to someone and I tell them I don't believe in god, they tell me that by making that statement I'm actually confirming my belief in him. Do you know what they're talking about, and could you explain that logic? It sounds like some sort of Orwellian doublespeak to me.

it's an old philosophy 101 trick.

The crux is that all positive attributes also must contain the possiblity for their opposite.

i.e: The sun is shining. This statement implies that at one point the sun was not shining.

Unicorns do not exist. This statement must contain the possibility that unicorns do exist.

yes it seems bizarre. But it is a semantic argument. It's a question of linguistics more than truth.

What you're saying is "unicorns DO not exist" They (unicorns) DO (positive affirmation of the follwing verb) not exist. So they DO "not exist". it's trickery of the highest order.

But, like most Phil 101 linguistical trampolining, it never truly serves the dicussion. It's usually how linguistics guys attack metaphysical arguments.



[EDIT: I did a bit more research and found the reference. Heraclitus (of the "step in the same river twice" fame) created the Doctrine of Flux, and it's subsection "Unity of opposites." This is where the notion of positives implying their negatives came from. Incidentally, there are some catholic notions that touch on this, although i can't be bothered to dig THOSE up. ]

[apl]

Originally Posted by 32-20-Blues

Can I ask, apl, did you always have faith, since you were younger, or did it come to you over time? Or, was the realisation sudden?

Both, I guess. I've pretty much always believed in something, as a really little kid I prayed before bedtime under direction from my parents and expected I was talking to God, as a school age kid it was Christianity, in High School it got very vague, first time around in college it got even vaguer but the faith I have now came like a bolt out of the blue, relatively speaking, over about fifteen minutes in the summer of 1982.

[muttley600]

Originally Posted by apl

That's begging the question. To answer it you'd have to come up with a God-detector of some sort, and if it worked and you didn't find God then you'd prove He existed because there was a unique attribute of His you'd be measuring, and if it did find God, well, you found God.

Therefore asking the question without trying to answer it is intentioinally presupposing there is no God.

I read it much the same but with the only logical presumption that there is a God. Sophists and scientists alike describe a model in the belief they can prove it rather than disprove. To my mind she has started from the point that there is a God in an attempt to prove that He doesn't exist.

In any event I think it has more to do with philosophy and sophistry than theology.

[lucky13]

Originally Posted by apl

I don't understand it either. Not believing in unicorns doesn't confirm their existence.

They were probably referring to ontological proofs, but I don't find them very compelling.

From the link you posted:

Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation:[3]

But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45

Whatever method of proof I use, I am always brought back to the fact that it is only what I clearly and distinctly perceive that completely convinces me. Some of the things I clearly and distinctly perceive are obvious to everyone, while others are discovered only by those who look more closely and investigate more carefully; but once they have been discovered, the latter are judged to be just as certain as the former. In the case of a right-angled triangle, for example, the fact that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the square on the other two sides is not so readily apparent as the fact that the hypotenuse subtends the largest angle; but once one has seen it, one believes it just as strongly. But as regards God, if I were not overwhelmed by philosophical prejudices, and if the images of things perceived by the senses did not besiege my thought on every side, I would certainly acknowledge him sooner and more easily than anything else. For what is more manifest than the fact that the supreme being exists, or that God, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists? (AT 7:68–69; CSM 2:47)


So basically he is using his idea of god as proof that god exists. Because if god did not exist he would not be able to come up with the concept of god.

For some reason this reminds me of an incident from when I was a kid. My dad came home with a mounted jackalope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope) Anyway based on the fact that there was the head of one mounted on the wall in my house, I was absolutely convinced that jackalopes existed, after all I'd seen one. I was quite disappointed to learn a couple of years later that jackalopes do not exist. This example shows that the concept for something can exist without there being a true physical (or metaphysical) being.

[brendandwyer]

Originally Posted by lucky13

From the link you posted:

Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation:[3]

But if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything which I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45

Whatever method of proof I use, I am always brought back to the fact that it is only what I clearly and distinctly perceive that completely convinces me. Some of the things I clearly and distinctly perceive are obvious to everyone, while others are discovered only by those who look more closely and investigate more carefully; but once they have been discovered, the latter are judged to be just as certain as the former. In the case of a right-angled triangle, for example, the fact that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the square on the other two sides is not so readily apparent as the fact that the hypotenuse subtends the largest angle; but once one has seen it, one believes it just as strongly. But as regards God, if I were not overwhelmed by philosophical prejudices, and if the images of things perceived by the senses did not besiege my thought on every side, I would certainly acknowledge him sooner and more easily than anything else. For what is more manifest than the fact that the supreme being exists, or that God, to whose essence alone existence belongs, exists? (AT 7:68–69; CSM 2:47)


So basically he is using his idea of god as proof that god exists. Because if god did not exist he would not be able to come up with the concept of god.

For some reason this reminds me of an incident from when I was a kid. My dad came home with a mounted jackalope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope) Anyway based on the fact that there was the head of one mounted on the wall in my house, I was absolutely convinced that jackalopes existed, after all I'd seen one. I was quite disappointed to learn a couple of years later that jackalopes do not exist. This example shows that the concept for something can exist without there being a true physical (or metaphysical) being.

the meditiation of first philosophy have been used to rationalize many many different philosophical ideologies over the years.

DesCartes argument that his conception of god could only be possible if there is a god, is an interesting one. But at the end of the day, what you have is a very arrogant view of reality.

If i can conceive of a pink elephant, it only means that the conception of the pink elephant is possible, and has NO bearing on the outward manifestation of a real pink elephant.

DesCarte's ability to conceive of God only means that he has the ability to conjur up that idea. Unfortunately, he then wandered into the mind body problem and sort of lost it.

[legionserial]

Originally Posted by brendandwyer

i.e: The sun is shining. This statement implies that at one point the sun was not shining.

Surely that would be "The sun is now shining". Otherwise it's just a statement of the present situation with no reference to anything that may or may not preceed it.

[brendandwyer]

Originally Posted by legionserial

Surely that would be "The sun is now shining". Otherwise it's just a statement of the present situation with no reference to anything that may or may not preceed it.

the only difference between the sun is shining and the sun is now shining is temporal.


The sun is shining is the opposite of the sun is not shining

the sun is now shining is the opposite of the sun is now not shining.

[legionserial]

Originally Posted by brendandwyer

the only difference between the sun is shining and the sun is now shining is temporal.


The sun is shining is the opposite of the sun is not shining

the sun is now shining is the opposite of the sun is now not shining.

But the inclusion of the word 'now' indicates that things may have been different at some point.

[brendandwyer]

Originally Posted by legionserial

But the inclusion of the word 'now' indicates that things may have been different at some point.

when forming logical test arguments, it pays to be absolutely certain of the words you're using.


So if we're trying to test the unity of opposites then we have many different ways to test this with the sun example.

1. The sun is shining
This implies the opposite: the sun is NOT shining. It does not imply any other affirmation or negation of other tenses. It does not imply that the sun has/was/will be/never shined(shine).

2. The sun has always shined
This implies the sun has NEVER shined. This example DOES imply that in the past and the present the sun has shined (is shining). However is does not imply a future condition

3. The sun will always shine
This implies the opposite: the sun will never shine. Again it does not explicitly imply a past condition, but does imply a present and future condition.


There are lots of ways to articulate the statement. But if we get back to basics:

God exists - God does not exist (present)
God exists now - god does not exist now(present)
God always existed - God never existed (past & present)
God will exist - god will not exist (future)
God will always exist - God will not always exist (present & future)

See how this is just a linguistic argument. It breaks down because our language and tenses are so precise, that in a linguistic argument, you really can only articulate precise conditions. That's one reason why precise arguments about god's existence are so difficult.

Believers in the existence of god argue that god has/is/will always exist. That implies (logically and linguistically) that god has not/is not/ and will not always exist.

But you can easily see that if any one of the three temporal conditions aren't met, the existence of god is logically disproven.

HOWEVER, if you use the Unity of Opposites, god both exists and does not exist. God both has always existed, and has never existed. And god will always exist, and will not always exist.

it's really a poor logical test, and is the obvious paradox that is created by the argument is one of the main reasons it's ignored today.