God and Philosophy

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I'm an atheist, but I don't base my reasons strictly on philosophy. Philosophy is a logical system, and logical systems work under mathematics. Mathematical systems can be complete, or consistent, but not both. So trying to prove God strictly on mathematical terms is essentially akin to harnessing infinity into a finite system which cannot be done without tweaking its logical basis into nonsense.
 
I'm an atheist, but I don't base my reasons strictly on philosophy. Philosophy is a logical system, and logical systems work under mathematics. Mathematical systems can be complete, or consistent, but not both. So trying to prove God strictly on mathematical terms is essentially akin to harnessing infinity into a finite system which cannot be done without tweaking its logical basis into nonsense.

so is your premise in that, that mathematics is a finite system and that a finite system is not adequate to solve infinite problems?

The only issue i have with that if god exists, god may or may not be infinite. So it's worthwhile, in my opinion to attempt to prove or disprove his existence using a finite system. along the way you might find that god's existence cannot be proven or disproven using logic, however, if you do find that, i think you have discovered more evidence of his existence. Deducing that he's infinite presupposes his existence.
 
Back
Top