Proof that there is no God

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 12 2005, 12:27 PM']Well this thread wasn't as much about proving God's non-existance as it was about understanding what would make you not believe in God. But I see now that it was a pretty silly question to ask. Like whether God not existing would make God non-existant or not.

[quote name='dspen2005']if the idea of God is present, then he does exist
[/quote]

Care to explain that a bit?
[right][snapback]720654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i think that homosexuality is a grave sin because i believe it causes people to not believe in god. People who experience SSA feel a certain way that contradicts the bibles claim it is bad. It may not even contradict the bible actually. People who are in a homosexual relationship may not be experiencing what a relationship was truelly intended to be. One can truelly believe that it is OK but i believe they would have no reason to believe that. Feelings dont determine the truth.......the truth existed way before feelings.

Another thing to ponder about............science. Ask yourself this.........did physics and chemistry etc. exist before it was even percieved? I would say absolutely yes. If i were to go back in time in a time..... when people didnt percieve gravity and laws and such I would be able to apply these laws and formulas then as i can now. The point is.........just because someone doesnt percieve something......doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Edited September 12, 2005 by infinitelord1

[Semalsia]

[quote]you can percieve things that are non-existent. A good example would be unicorns. But the concept of unicorns is existent[/quote]

Are you saying that everything imaginable exists?

Or are you saying that even if God doesn't actually exist as such, the concept of him would still exist in our thoughts, and that that's enough for catholicism?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 12 2005, 02:38 PM']Are you saying that everything imaginable exists?

Or are you saying that even if God doesn't actually exist as such, the concept of him would still exist in our thoughts, and that that's enough for catholicism?
[right][snapback]720832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well, i am not sure myself about the existence of god.........but what i was saying is that the concept exists in itself. But when it comes to unicorns one would have no reason to believe in such a thing since nobody has ever seen such a thing or had a reason to percieve it. When it comes to god it is different (especially after christ came). Jesus christ would be gods way of prooving his existence to us. We can choose to not believe in him since we have free-will.........but do we have absolute reason to not believe in him? No. Therefore it is only logical that we be open to the existence of god.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Sep 12 2005, 02:38 PM']Are you saying that everything imaginable exists?

Or are you saying that even if God doesn't actually exist as such, the concept of him would still exist in our thoughts, and that that's enough for catholicism?
[right][snapback]720832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is related to my above comments, but is in its own right a deep philosophical questions that has its beginning in the arguments put forward by Parmenidies and has still been debated by the likes of Russell and Meinog.

I will take each of your two points in turn:

First: yes, everything imaginable exists, because what is understood (or imagined) exists in the understanding (or imagination). So a unicorn exists so far as it exists in your understanding.

Another way to think about it is like this:

1.) Every object of thought is an object (ie for every thought there is a "something" you thought about.)
2.) Every object exists in some degree
2a.) Suppose that not every object exists in some degree
2b.) Then there is some object which does not exist in any degree
2c.) But an object not existing in any degree is not an object
2d.) Therefore every object exists in some degree
3.) Therefore, every object of thought exists in some degree


Now, regarding your question about whether "just the concept of God" could exist, the answer is no. If the concept of God exists, then it necessarily follows that God exists in reality.

If you want me to expound upon the last point further, I will be more than happy to post Anselm's Argument and discuss it with you, but I'm not going to take the trouble of posting it if no one is interested.

In Christ,

Jeff

Edited September 12, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Semalsia]

[quote name='JeffCR07']If you want me to expound upon the last point further, I will be more than happy to post Anselm's Argument and discuss it with you
[/quote]

Please do. I'd be very interested in it.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 12 2005, 03:31 PM']This is related to my above comments, but is in its own right a deep philosophical questions that has its beginning in the arguments put forward by Parmenidies and has still been debated by the likes of Russell and Meinog.

I will take each of your two points in turn:

First: yes, everything imaginable exists, because what is understood (or imagined) exists in the understanding (or imagination). So a unicorn exists so far as it exists in your understanding.

Another way to think about it is like this:

1.) Every object of thought is an object (ie for every thought there is a "something" you thought about.)
2.) Every object exists in some degree
        2a.) Suppose that not every object exists in some degree
        2b.) Then there is some object which does not exist in any degree
        2c.) But an object not existing in any degree is not an object
        2d.) Therefore every object exists in some degree
3.) Therefore, every object of thought exists in some degree
Now, regarding your question about whether "just the concept of God" could exist, the answer is no. If the concept of God exists, then it necessarily follows that God exists in reality.

If you want me to expound upon the last point further, I will be more than happy to post Anselm's Argument and discuss it with you, but I'm not going to take the trouble of posting it if no one is interested.

In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]720908[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
im interested too........i dont understand the point you made in number 3.
I dont see how you can come to a conclusion that god exists in reality if the concept of god exists. I am assuming that you mean "heaven" by reality since that is what reality is. Technically we are not living in reality. I agree that god exists in reality but we dont even know if reality exists. Hopefully when you share more of this arguement with us i will understand more on how {god(concept)=god(reality)}. This just seems like another arguement that only works if you believe in god, so far.

Edited September 12, 2005 by infinitelord1

[Semalsia]

[quote name='infinitelord1']Therefore it is only logical that we be open to the existence of god.[/quote]

Openness has never been an issue for me. Faith has.

[Guest JeffCR07]

here is the my summary of Anselm's Ontological Argument. If you read it through, you will see how, in the case of God, and God alone, his real existence is necessitated by his conceptual existence:

Anselm’s Argument



Point 1 (Premise)

God is something "than which nothing greater can be conceived."

Point 2 (Concluded from 2a and 2b)

Something exists, in the understanding at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived"

Proof:
2a.) All men, believers and unbelievers alike, understand when they hear of something than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2b.) whatever is understood, exists in the understanding

Point 3 (Premise)

Something that exists both in the understanding AND in reality would be greater [as a being] than an otherwise identical thing that existed in the understanding but not in reality.

Point 4 (Concluded from 4a-4d)

If something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding but not in the reality, then it is something than which something greater can be conceived.

Proof:
4a.) Suppose something (call it "G1") than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding but not in the reality.
4b.) It can be conceived to exist in reality also. That is, an otherwise identical thing (call it "G2") can be conceived to exist in reality as well as the understanding.
4c.) The thing we conceive to exist both in the understanding and in reality is greater [as a being] than the otherwise identical thing, which exists in the understanding but not in reality. That is, G2 is greater [as a being] than G1.
4d.) The thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which something greater can be conceived. That is, G1 is a thing than which something greater (namely G2) can be conceived.

Point 5 (Premise)

It is impossible that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which a greater thing can be conceived.

Point 6 (Concluded from 4 and 5)

It is false that something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding but not in the reality.

Point 7 (Concluded from 2 and 6)

There exists something than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Point 8 (Concluded from 1 and 7)

God exists.




Take your time with it, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask, either here, or on PM

In Christ,

Jeff

[infinitelord1]

is there any way you can ball this up in a nutshell and put it in layman's terms? I dont really understand all of this.

[Guest JeffCR07]

In short, no, at least, not without losing significant intricacies in the argument.

That having been said, I think Anselm himself provides a really succinct way of expressing the argument in the third chapter of his [i]Prosologion[/i]:

[quote]0 Lord my God, You exist so truly that You cannot even
be thought not to exist.[/quote]

By this he means that if God is thought of as not existing in reality then what is being thought of isn't really God.

By "God" we mean "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

So, I can conceive of something which exists in the understanding alone, or both in the understanding and in reality.

A thing existing in both reality and in the understanding is greater than a being existing in just the understanding.

So, if I conceive of God existing just in the understanding, then I'm not conceiving of God, because I can conceive of something even [i]greater[/i] - namely, a being which is exactly like the one in my understanding, but that also exists in reality.

I think the summary I provided above is a pretty good explanation, because it goes step by step, and it shows which steps are necessary and related for each premise.

If you have any specific questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them!

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

bump? no takers....

[Semalsia]

I'm thinking and figuring out the argument...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 15 2005, 09:03 PM']bump? no takers....

 
[right][snapback]724898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm rather fond of Anselm's argument, so I have no counterargument.

[White Knight]

Interesting how this thread has progressed.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Semalsia, take your time, if you run into any questions concerning the intricacies of the argument, feel free to post here or to PM me!

Raphael, as you can tell, I'm rather fond of it too :

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 15 2005, 11:14 PM']Interesting how this thread has progressed.
[right][snapback]725152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


yea, we went from proof that there is no God to proof that there is

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I love St. Anselm. His "Proslogion" is one of my favorite books.

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, I'm impressed, there aren't very many anselmians around, lol. Have you read any of his other works?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I always liked St. Anselm because I thought that his ontological proof was brilliant. Nevermind the counterarguments, which seemed to me to miss the point.