Let's suppose God did....

[Wiccan_Child]

Philosophers do not "arbitrarily" use Anselms's definition. It has been the traditional conceptualization of God in Western philosophy for centuries simply because it is the most comprehensive, succinct and coherent definition of God.

The conceptualization of the "greatest conceivable being" which is the definition in a nutshell, was articulated by Plato as well as Aristotle and was later refined and expounded upon by minds like Augustine and Aquinas.

Since that time it has been the favored definition used in the philosophic community. Anytime God is mentioned in philosophy with a capital "G" , this is what the word refers to.

The word "gods" can be used to denote the gods of pantheism, or the gods I.e. idols of a specific pagan religion. Philosopers have little to nothing to do with the latter two uses of the word god with the lower case "G".

As I have stated previously elsewhere, the traditional definition of God used in philosophy is full of content and meaning. No contemporary philosopher whether they be non theistic or theistic in there thinking would venture to say that the traditional Western conceptualization of God is void of meaning. The concept is simply too well studied and has too much of a rich history within the philosophic community for any serious philosopher to deny this while still majntaining their credibility.

And yet, despite all this armchair philosophising, there's still no evidence that this maximal being actually exist. Rationally, therefore, we should reject the claim until such time that evidence is found.

And if no such evidence for theism is possible, well, so much for theism. It's not exactly my problem

 

[Davian]

Your misgivings are based on a logical positivistic methodology which was abandoned by philosophers and scientists some sixty years ago Mr. JGG.

You have been corrected on this in the past. JGG's comments are based on the concept of falsification, a concept that is in opposition to positivism.

Drop the strawman arguments already.

That is the reason why you find no secular/non-theistic philosophers raising these questions that you are raising. In fact, it is only on internet forums and in infidel youtube videos that you find these questions/objections being raised.

Even if you could demonstrate this as fact, it would be irrelevant.

Operationalism is a child of the logical positivistic era which was popular in the 20's and 30's.It is used in certain specific disciplines none of which are pertinent to our discussion of God's existence. I have already given sources regarding logical positivism's decline and ultimate rejection by the scientific and philosophic communities. I can give them to you if you would like.

They would be irrelevant.

Ultimately, our working definition of God according to Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is full of content. So much so that God still finds place in one way or the other in metaphysical and philosophical discourse today.

Of what significance is this 'perfect being'? How is this definition falsifiable?

We investigate God's existence the same way we investigate any other person's existence. We do this by keeping in mind God's superlative attributes. If God exists then we expect for there to be evidence of this. Philosophers of religion, natural theologians, metaphysicians, historians, astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, biologists, archaeologists, etc. have a wealth of data at their disposal for investigating this matter. This is one area in which science has been and can be very useful.

Yet all you have, with only a few days until your first year anniversary on this site, is a character in a book.

 

[Elioenai26]

Disregarding your ironic diatribe against logical positivist because they have antiquated ideas:

Yet the evidence is nil.

Otherwise please point out the scientific evidence for God's existence and, remember to first define God in a way it could be evidenced.

I can assure you that plain old empiricism has not been abandoned by the scientific community.

Well I feel I can be quite charitable here and say that it was not my main contention that logical positivism was antiquated although I would not be wrong in saying that it was, that was not my main point.

My main point was that it is simply not held by any credible contemporary philosophers because of its restrictiveness and inescapable self defeating nature.

Having said that let me say this:

I would be delighted to formally debate you on the topic:"Does God Exist". We can do it right here in our own designated thread. But I will refrain from presenting an argument here in this specific thread because that is not what the thread is for. I await your response eagerly.

 

[variant]

Well I feel I can be quite charitable here and say that it was not my main contention that logical positivism was antiquated although I would not be wrong in saying that it was, that was not my main point.

My main point was that it is simply not held by any credible contemporary philosophers because of its restrictiveness and inescapable self defeating nature.

A rigid logical positivist framework seems to have fallen out of favor.

Clearly defineing what you are trying to evidence and what kind of evidence you would expect for it are examples of empirical theory which the philosophy of science has not in any way shape or form discarded.

Having said that let me say this:

I would be delighted to formally debate you on the topic:"Does God Exist". We can do it right here in our own designated thread. But I will refrain from presenting an argument here in this specific thread because that is not what the thread is for. I await your response eagerly.

I've read too many of your posts/threads to find this appealing or interesting as a prospect.

Perhapse if you clearly defined what you meant by God It might make it more interesting.

 

[quatona]

"The working assumption from the Greeks onward has been that God is the most perfect possible being." God, Western Concepts of[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western Philosophy and theology.

[/quote]
Ok, then let´s apply to your OP question to the being defined as above:

How would you know it was God revealing Himself and not just some natural event with a natural explanation?

On basis of the above definitions, I have no idea how I would know that. I´m not playing in the league of perfect freedom, omniscience and omnipotence, after all.
You tell me.
OTOH, with this "most perfectly possible being" being "perfectly, free, omnipotent omniscient and the creator of all things" it would certainly know how to convince me of its existence, if it wished me to know it exists. I am concluding that this being is perfectly fine with me not knowing it exists.

 

[Freodin]

If we have a thread dedicated to the extraordinary things that God could do to show his existence to unbelievers... why is this thread filled with ancient man-made (and rather limited to useless) apologetic arguments?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Philosophers do not "arbitrarily" use Anselms's definition. It has been the traditional conceptualization of God in Western philosophy for centuries simply because it is the most comprehensive, succinct and coherent definition of God.

The conceptualization of the "greatest conceivable being" which is the definition in a nutshell, was articulated by Plato as well as Aristotle and was later refined and expounded upon by minds like Augustine and Aquinas.

Since that time it has been the favored definition used in the philosophic community. Anytime God is mentioned in philosophy with a capital "G" , this is what the word refers to.

The word "gods" can be used to denote the gods of pantheism, or the gods I.e. idols of a specific pagan religion. Philosopers have little to nothing to do with the latter two uses of the word god with the lower case "G".

As I have stated previously elsewhere, the traditional definition of God used in philosophy is full of content and meaning. No contemporary philosopher whether they be non theistic or theistic in there thinking would venture to say that the traditional Western conceptualization of God is void of meaning. The concept is simply too well studied and has too much of a rich history within the philosophic community for any serious philosopher to deny this while still majntaining their credibility.

That's a lot of posturing. Very impressive. You're wrong of course...

I'm sure you've heard of Charles Hartshorne, "considered by many philosophers to be one of the most important philosophers of religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century". he disagreed with Anselm's idea of absolute perfection. There are other Christian philosophers that have done the same.

And it sounds like you're falling back on some argument from authority. Which we both know is fallacious. Give actual evidence that Anselm's definition is a more correct definition than other definitions, rather than the silly "All credible philosophers think this way" smokescreen which everyone can see through.

 

[JGG]

Your misgivings are based on a logical positivistic methodology which was abandoned by philosophers and scientists some sixty years ago Mr. JGG. That is the reason why you find no secular/non-theistic philosophers raising these questions that you are raising. In fact, it is only on internet forums and in infidel youtube videos that you find these questions/objections being raised.

Operationalism is a child of the logical positivistic era which was popular in the 20's and 30's.It is used in certain specific disciplines none of which are pertinent to our discussion of God's existence. I have already given sources regarding logical positivism's decline and ultimate rejection by the scientific and philosophic communities. I can give them to you if you would like.

Ultimately, our working definition of God according to Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is full of content. So much so that God still finds place in one way or the other in metaphysical and philosophical discourse today.

We investigate God's existence the same way we investigate any other person's existence. We do this by keeping in mind God's superlative attributes. If God exists then we expect for there to be evidence of this. Philosophers of religion, natural theologians, metaphysicians, historians, astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, biologists, archaeologists, etc. have a wealth of data at their disposal for investigating this matter. This is one area in which science has been and can be very useful.

Perhaps you could share the evidence for, say, a perfectly good being as found by cosmologists, physicists, biologists or archaeologists? I have no real interest in theologians or philosopher's evidence.

 

[pjnlsn]

Well now that seems quite remarkable to me for several reasons:

1. To say that there is no operational definition of God is to ignore the very obvious fact that ever since philosophy as a discipline was undertaken by the Greeks, a commonly agreed upon operational definition of God has been the foundation from which these philosophers worked.

To support this statement all I have to do is simply appeal to the history philosophy itself. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"The working assumption from the Greeks onward has been that God is the most perfect possible being." God, Western Concepts of[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western Philosophy and theology.

2. The asssertion that there is no operational definition of God is remarkable also in it is a statement that is completely contrary to what is evidenced in contemporary philosophical discussion. Many of the most prominent and well-known philosophers of today
both non-theist and theist alike are deeply involved in work regarding God. Debates abound between non-theistic and theistic philosophers regarding God's existence and none of these philosophers maintain that there is no operational definition of God. So in conclusion it seems to me that this notion of there being no operational definition of God is completely unsubstantiated.

All of the above leaves me asking the following: where do you two gentleman get the idea that there is no operational definition of God? Since this view is not commonly held by contemporary philosophers, you must have gleaned it from some other source (s). What are these sources? Why should these sources be given more credibility than the current consensus of the philosophic community?

The bottom line is that there's no proof.

However you have again misinterpreted a simple statement. It was not written that there was no definition, it was written that there was no operational definition i.e. "We don't simply not know what to look for, we haven't decided what we're looking for evidence of."

Or, as I put it:

"In the most general sense possible, [and beyond that it is not proven,] the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

 

[pjnlsn]

Your misgivings are based on a logical positivistic methodology which was abandoned by philosophers and scientists some sixty years ago Mr. JGG. That is the reason why you find no secular/non-theistic philosophers raising these questions that you are raising. In fact, it is only on internet forums and in infidel youtube videos that you find these questions/objections being raised.

Operationalism is a child of the logical positivistic era which was popular in the 20's and 30's.It is used in certain specific disciplines none of which are pertinent to our discussion of God's existence. I have already given sources regarding logical positivism's decline and ultimate rejection by the scientific and philosophic communities. I can give them to you if you would like.

Ultimately, our working definition of God according to Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is full of content. So much so that God still finds place in one way or the other in metaphysical and philosophical discourse today.

We investigate God's existence the same way we investigate any other person's existence. We do this by keeping in mind God's superlative attributes. If God exists then we expect for there to be evidence of this. Philosophers of religion, natural theologians, metaphysicians, historians, astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, biologists, archaeologists, etc. have a wealth of data at their disposal for investigating this matter. This is one area in which science has been and can be very useful.

You display a very selective intelligence, Elio. You have knowledge, yes, on philosophy and theology and their histories, but then you use directly or indirectly sourced content to make arguments from authority, more or less, or display an attitude which is in accordance with such, or make a post which while perhaps it doesn't state the aim so clearly, the most likely intent is an authority from authority.

And of course you miss the bottom line ( and more of my posts in general than any other person on the site ) of the issue: There is no proof.

For example, even if a definition which arose from neccesary interpretation of clearly enumerated aspects of reality, which is the kind of definition everyone is, essentially, telling you is not present, like the definition, say, of gravitational force between masses we should be aware of, or the underlying astronomical data, it would still not mean that there was proof, or even that the existence of this deity was likely.

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhapse if you clearly defined what you meant by God It might make it more interesting.

Please reference the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for the definition of God as I am using the term. I have already provided the definition several times and I hope when you utilize the references provided, you will see that they will provide you with the same definition I have given.

 

[Davian]

...
It is not a detriment to you because you ultimately get what it is that you want from God...Nothing... You see no divine acts or miracles. You see no evidence of God. And you are happy and content with this.

This I don't get. With few exceptions, I have not seen anyone going on about being happy and content that gods and miracles are works of fiction, that there is no afterlife, etc.

Projecting again?

I think it would be positively fascinating to see a demonstration of what has been described as 'supernatural'.

 

[pjnlsn]

Please reference the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for the definition of God as I am using the term. I have already provided the definition several times and I hope when you utilize the references provided, you will see that they will provide you with the same definition I have given.

And yet, of it there still is no proof, nor is it likely.

 

[variant]

Please reference the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for the definition of God as I am using the term. I have already provided the definition several times and I hope when you utilize the references provided, you will see that they will provide you with the same definition I have given.

Without a definitive list of relevant features of God you wish to put into evidence I don't see a point in going forward.

There is no point in going forward with a debate about a specific thing when we probably aren't even starting in the same epistemological ballpark.

And again, I've already seen most of your arguments I think, I don't really wish to argue rehashed Aquinas with you again.

 

[Christian7PraiseJesus]

That evolution was false.

I never understood this black and white, narrow-minded debate, false dilemma thinking that "it must be one or the other.... or ELSE." Frankly, it actually GROWS my belief in Jesus, who is God. Why? The more I learn about how complicated the world is, the more my belief grows because it is so complicated.

If the world was as simple as a two dimensional figure, and simply made in 1, 2, 3. It would be like.. well.. so what? Then the world would be empty and TOO simple. It would be like.. well.. a person can make a two dimensional figure. However, the world is NOT simple, it is highly complex and intricate. The more I learn, the more I learn how intricate it is, and the more my belief in Jesus, who is God, grows. My awe and amazement grows in the almighty power of God. There simply is no way a person could make the earth or the universe, it is too complicated for them. Jesus is complex, powerful, and almighty. There nothing which even comes close to His power, His salvation, His might.

So when I learned about evolution (though I got bits and pieces of it from who-knows-when, I think when I learned about it in school I had already heard of it), it was like... wow.. God is strong. God is complicated and complex. My belief grew, because it all was simply too complicated for a human. I already knew He was protecting me, because I felt the comfort and when I'd ask for help, I would see an answer, even if it was so slight and coincidental. But there were so many coincidences, that it was simply too many to be probable. I thought about statistics and probability, even before I took statistics. Over and over and over again, more and more coincidences. More answers, more help. And none of what I asked for help for was in my control.

So when I sit here and learn about Microbiology, for example. My awe and amazement grows for Jesus, who is God. For instance, look how complicated just this is: The ribosome, start codon, rRNA, tRNA, mRNA, codon, elongation, termination, E site, P site, A site, peptide bond, polypeptide, non-sense (aka stop) codon... are all a part of one small aspect in this large world, protein synthesis (DNA to transcription to RNA to translation to proteins - the central dogma). It's amazing Jesus's power. Initiation is when mRNA template, a ribosome (contains RNA), a charged tRNA with anticodon (first codon always AUG) are the players. Every 3 nucleotides is called a codon, which is what is read to make an amino acid. Amino acid codons are degenerate, meaning they have more than one codon per amino acid. tRNA carries an amino acid (charged), and has an anticodon. tRNA reads the mRNA anticodon: codon complementary binding. The tRNA's will reach the mRNA codon. mRNA is the template for translation. The uncharged tRNAs can have another amino acid re-added to it, so that it can participate again. The A site is the amino acid site, the P site is the polypeptide site, the E site is the exit site. The A site will hold a charged tRNA with an anti-codon which can bind to a mRNA codon. The P site will hold a tRNA which has the growing polypeptide and tRNA can bind to mRNA codon, with its anticodon. The T site will hold an uncharged tRNA, which can bind to mRNA codon, with its anticodon. During Elongation, the next charged tRna, with a ribosome, moves to the right and a peptide bond is formed. rRNA is part of the ribosome. The P site, E site, and A site will have their charged and uncharded tRNAs with anti-codons connect to the mRNA codons. This is repeated until termination. During Termination, the ribosome will reach a stop codon. The P site will dissociate and will leave an active protein. The ribsosome will come off and RNases (enzymes) break down mRNA.

Look how complicated only that process (Translation) is from RNA to proteins, and this is an extremely simplified version. This intricacy strengthens my belief and awe in Jesus. Noway can a human even come close to this. Even more so, when I learn about mycobacterium leprae, pathogenic microbes, paralysis, and how difficult it is to treat ANY of this. I mean, Louis Pasteur hadn't even SEEN microbes until around 1860 (though there was a person before him who saw some under a microscope). Physicians would basically tell people how long they had to live and could not treat anything. It was all unknown, and for Jesus, who is God, to wipe all that away and cure it in an instant, absolutely a miracle.

I mean, if the world was all so simple like disinfection with dry heat, pasteurization, filtration, low temperature, autoclave, high pressure, osmotic pressure, extreme pH, and radiation, it would be as dry as stationary phase (when a microbe ate all of its resources, reached maximum growth, swimming in its own waste). It would as simple as a person raising the temperature of an item so that it can be sterilized in a pressure cooker. Thankfully, the world is much more complicated. Thank Jesus God! It would be like an aldehyde inactivating proteins by cross-linking with functional groups. What a plasmid,a circular piece of DNA in addition to main chromosome.

Anyhow, all of this makes me amazed with Jesus God. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. The more I realize just how powerful Jesus is. No human could come close to any of this. It strengthens my faith. The more I want to learn so I can help people like Jesus commanded us, "Help the Sick," "Sell all you have and give to the poor," "Bring the maimed, the blind, the sick, the poor to your table." The more skills, the better His commandments can be fulfilled, which is the main goal.

In an odd comparison which really does not give Him enough credit AT ALL, it's like an endospore. This is really odd, I know and not at all as important as Jesus, who is God. But think about it. A vegetative cell makes an endospore. It's not called a reproductive process like germination, but one would think it was. This endospore has the exact same DNA as the vegetative cell. The vegetative cell leaves the spore behind, with the same DNA. This spore can then return to the vegetative cell state when coaxed. In a way, I've been thinking about this, this is sort of (with emphasis) like a way to understand how God came to earth. God (the father), the soul, is the vegetative cell, God (Jesus), God coming in the flesh as a theophany, is the endospore, they have the exact same traits and DNA for they ARE the same, one, then Jesus returns to His vegetative cell state (the soul) when He is resurrected (His soul never died though, only the body, the spirit never dies) and goes to heaven as He IS God. So it is a cycle.

So endospore, vegetative cell...
The more science, the MORE I believe in Jesus, who is God! For the more complicated the world is, the more awed and amazed I am in Him, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

 

[variant]

I never understood this black and white, narrow-minded debate, false dilemma thinking that "it must be one or the other.... or ELSE." Frankly, it actually GROWS my belief in Jesus, who is God. Why? The more I learn about how complicated the world is, the more my belief grows because it is so complicated.

Biological evolution was never a "either or" with religion, as the theory doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of any Gods.

The people who have the most problem with this though seem to be the religious people who feel it conflicts with some part of their religious doctrine.

Frankly, religious people teaching their kids that evolution is false because they feel threatened by it tends to do more harm to the religion than good.

 

[Christian7PraiseJesus]

Biological evolution was never a "either or" with religion, as the theory doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of any Gods.

But I'd say it does because it is so complicated. Jesus is complicated.

The people who have the most problem with this though seem to be the religious people who feel it conflicts with some part of their religious doctrine.

But it is complex and intricate, making Jesus, God more powerful than previously thought, making the belief even stronger than before. The awe and amazement with Jesus God even stronger as well. No human can come close. It's complicated even more so than constitutive operons, which are expressed all the time because they have "strong" promoters.

Frankly, religious people teaching their kids that evolution is false because they feel threatened by it tends to do more harm to the religion than good.

I don't know why people feel threatened by theories, as IMO, it proves Jesus, who is God, even more because it proves His power, omnipotence, and omniscience, His omnipresence. How amazing and inspiring is God that He can create all of this, how complicated, impressive, and complex, as He is complex.

 

[Christian7PraiseJesus]

This I don't get. With few exceptions, I have not seen anyone going on about being happy and content that gods and miracles are works of fiction, that there is no afterlife, etc.

But there is an afterlife... you can see souls in people's eyes. You can see it in their eyes and their is indeed a sense of self. There is a perspective and individualized viewpoint.

People can lose consciousness then return to consciousness.

Projecting again?

I think it would be positively fascinating to see a demonstration of what has been described as 'supernatural'.

It was shown, when God in the flesh came to earth as Jesus, as a theophany (appearance of God). It is shown in the archeological roman catacombs, with over 600 miles of data, with symbols and shown events of Jesus's life, from years after His resurrection to 313 A.D.. Written descriptions from numerous people and millions of people.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But there is an afterlife... you can see souls in people's eyes. You can see it in their eyes and their is indeed a sense of self. There is a perspective and individualized viewpoint.

I don't see how you get from "a perspective and individualized viewpoint", which no one disputes, to "there is an afterlife".

"People can lose consciousness then return to consciousness" doesn't quite seem to do the job, since they return to consciousness in the same body through natural means.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

But there is an afterlife... you can see souls in people's eyes.

No, I see pupils, retinas, irises.. no 'souls'.

You can see it in their eyes and their is indeed a sense of self. There is a perspective and individualized viewpoint.

What has that to do with an alleged afterlife?

People can lose consciousness then return to consciousness.

Sure. That will happen to me tonight/tomorrow morning.

It was shown, when God in the flesh came to earth as Jesus, as a theophany (appearance of God). It is shown in the archeological roman catacombs, with over 600 miles of data, with symbols and shown events of Jesus's life, from years after His resurrection to 313 A.D.. Written descriptions from numerous people and millions of people.

No, it was not shown. All you have is a book of stories written by men of which we don't even know their names.

Let me help you. You will find Christian Apologetics forum this way.