Theists: How Do You Explain This?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleguy123, Sep 4, 2010.

  1. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #1
    Christians believe that God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived right? The creation of the universe was the greatest achievement ever. The merit of an achievement is based on the ability of the creator, the quality of the work, and the handicap of the creator. The greatest handicap ever would be non-existance, so God either isn't the greatest thing that can be conceived, or he doesn't exist. Mind=blown
    I got this from reading arguments to the ontological argument, it is not mine. I just curious as to how this can be refuted, because I am brain dead just from thinking about it.
     
  2. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #2
    Simple. You do not argue with a philosopher. Using the logic like that I could prove that gravity is not real.
    I could prove that you do not exist and so on.

    Using logic you can prove anything is not true. Harder to prove true but fairly easy to prove something is not true. Hell you can take logic and make something that is true false.

    Before someone goes off on me about gravity not being true. Please note I said in the rules of logical agrument. Not science. They are 2 very different things.
     
  3. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #3
    Okay, I'm going to call you on that bluff show me with logic that gravity is not real.
    And if you say that you can prove something true, false with with, then you are saying that logic cannot truly exist. If logic does not exist, can any argument ever be settled again, except through violence?
     
  4. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #4
    Whatever the deity is/was I doubt you'll get a straight answer from Christians I look at it as an asymptotic philosophical concept. I personally conclude it exist(s/ed) but I disagree with the limited definitions humanity labels it with.
     
  5. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #5
    I was a Christian a long time ago ( I suppose due to indoctrination), but now am a deist, so I believe exactly what you just wrote.
     
  6. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #6
    I've been one now going on around 20 years I think I lost count how long after the UDC went tits up sometime around 2003
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    sorry not that skilled with logic. Hell I hated philosophy for oh so many reasons. I dropped that class for many of those reasons because the teacher using logic would prove that things that we know are true are false.

    I could never wrap my head around it.
    I am just saying that your logical argument that are you using is on the level of gravity is not real in how the logic is twisted.
     
  8. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #8
    This question doesn't just pertain to Christians. It's for anyone who believes in God (the one from the Bible, Qur'an and Torah), not even religion-specific-wise.

    That's when faith comes into play. The belief in something you cannot see and can't physically prove exists. ....or something.

    It's impossible to explain God. AG123, you're right. He is either everything in the universe (if he exists), or he never did exist and is just a figment of the imagination.
     
  9. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #9
    This isn't about faith, this is about logic. This isn't a question of whether or not God exists, it is a question of how God can be the great being if he does exist.
     
  10. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #10
    That is why I consider it a philosophical concept rather than a tangibly scientific testable one ultimately it lies in personal concept whether one concludes that it exists or not. There exists also the ever evolving inifnite regression question of what came before but I think that question is a linear limitation based upon our perception of time.
     
  11. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #11
    I don't believe in infinite regression problems.
    And no it doesn't lie on if one believes or not. There is only one answer to the question "Is God real?," and it is not subjective.
     
  12. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #12
    All that logical reasoning can fry your brain.
    If he exists, he is greater that we could possibly imagine. He would actually be everything, no matter how distant, how good or evil, etc. Just trying to comprehend the size of the universe and trying to imagine that everyTHing in it was designed by one being - will make your head explode.
     
  13. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #13
    How can something like this not show signs of its existence? Certainly if it existed we would know for absolute certain.
     
  14. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #14
    what do you consider signs?

    ask yourself why there is anything at all. why does anything exist? wrap your mind around that
     
  15. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #15
    Perhaps it is because we are limited by the four dimensions (space and time), which we can only perceive. :confused:
     
  16. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #16
    Okay, the iPhone is like a smelly pile of crap compared to this hypothetical God, and yet almost everyone knows iPhones exist.
    And to your second point, I'm more curious as to how nothing could exist.
    1. This is just an excuse for why you can't perceive God with the senses.
    2. How can God be expected to punish people for disbelief if he is not even in their same dimensions?
     
  17. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #17
    Poor analogy as it should be more along the lines of does the iphone make evidence that Apple exists? With similar thought, could the signs of a greater being be that of existence itself (life, universe, everything we know that everyone know exists?)

    Nothing existing would be much more logical in my mind than having anything exist at all as by existing, what is the point of the existence?
     
  18. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #18
    There is no point or meaning to existence. Meaning is a human engineered concept and exists only in the human mind.
    Can I prove that Apple exists is an interesting concept to consider, but not near as interesting as considering that if no one had told you about a God, God would not exist at all to you. The same would not be true for Apple as you could see where they are based, and where they produce their goods.
     
  19. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #19
    I think in order to avoid infinite regression one has to look at the properties of time and begin to dismiss time as we see it. Not to dismiss time as a real thing of course it is a very real thing and it is a constant in all known realities effected by its interactions with other constants we have discovered to be existing none of these constants were invented by humanity but were observed and defined in a scientific fashion by humanity.

    The concept of we know of as infinity is something that is defined by our limited understanding of time and thus so is our concept of infinite regression because we are comfortable sticking with a linear pattern of how things work. A seems to direct itself to B in every possible thought we make so we always find ourselves asking what symbol comes before A. Action always leads to consequence because the linear pattern we are bound by dictates it past always leads to present always leads to future by our perception and our limitation. We are fine with things going on forever if they go in the single direction we observe.

    Now here's the twisted part What came first (sorry first is the best word my mind could translate the thought for--perhaps "zeroth" is slightly better but still not adequate) The Deity or time? If the deity exists zeroth and it created time the flaw is smaller only flawed as far as the limit of the concept to the human mind (because we require time as a reference). If time was first (sorry zeroth) then time is full of flaws on its own because of its weakness in remaining constant under interaction with the other forces of our one known universe.

    Time has many flaws as creator it is subject to the creations other known observed universal constants such as the speed of light, or gravity. These two things alone are affected and affect when they interact. So logically time is not the creator at least to me--nor would gravity or light be. Whatever the deity be it is outside the dictates of its creation in some way we cannot possibly ever conceive of...it is asymptotic and anyone who claims a complete understanding of its being is an idiot.
     
  20. erickkoch macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Location:
    Kalifornia
    #20
    Good one, Appleguy, this question caused my brain to hurt. I never liked the Ontological Argument anyway. The argument is from Douglas Gasking and is as follows:

    1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
    2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
    3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
    5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6. Therefore, God does not exist.

    The answer is that premise 1 is never proven (this argument assumes the universe or "world" is Gods greatest achievement but we don't know that for sure) Maybe Gods greatest achievement is something he does with the universe or in it (like the redemption of mankind, if you're a Christian), or something entirely different. We just don't know.

    Premise 4 takes existence as a property (as does the original ontological argument) and assumes non-existence is a perfection whereas the original ontological argument assumes existence a perfection. Further, premise 4 is nonsensical, a non-existent creator likely wouldn't create anything, but I guess that's the point of a parody, This argument is a parody of Anselms ontological argument.

    1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
    1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
    2. Being is greater than not being
    3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
    4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
    Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists.
     
  21. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #21
    If you want to read something a little more theological read this: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm.

    It is from the Summa Tehologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, there he explains his reasons for believing in the existence of a God.

    I'll copy here an excerpt from the text, but you should really read all if you are interested of this topic:

     
  22. spblat macrumors 6502a

    spblat

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #22
    You are asking for a theological conversation built upon logic. I don't think it works that way. The religious believer always has the position of faith to fall back upon. Some will claim (erroneously I believe) that logic and reason support their faith, but the wiser ones will say that it is not necessary or reasonable to rely upon the logic of limited beings such as ourselves when contemplating the infinite.
     
  23. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #23
    I agree with this. Furthermore, if it lies outside our comprehension, its pointless to try and comprehend it.
     
  24. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #24
    Sorry, guys, but this thread reminds me a bit that the late Richard Jeni did, where you can indeed using the three-part syllogism to prove just about anything. An example:

    1. God Is Love
    2. Love Is Blind
    Therefore it is proven that:

    3. Ray Charles Is God!
     
  25. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #25
    So is Stevie Wonder!

    "You are the sunshine of my life..."
     

Share This Page