Does God Exist? [Arguments & Proofs]

[ducati916]

The following proposition is the first of five propositions posited by St Anslem as his proof of God existing. I have reformulated the wording so as to be consistent with the definition provided yesterday.

1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived

Proposition 1 simply asserts a minimal definition of the term God. St Anslem is saying, in effect, that people who believe in God, believe in the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

Thus the only way to deny the existence of God, is to deny the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived. So, essentially, our human reality, must be, to deny God, the reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, of which none greater can be conceived, places the claimant in a very difficult position.

Of course before progressing to the second proposition, the first must be accepted. To be accepted, it must stand, in the face of all refutations.

jog on
duc

 

[GumbyLearner]

The following proposition is the first of five propositions posited by St Anslem as his proof of God existing. I have reformulated the wording so as to be consistent with the definition provided yesterday.



Proposition 1 simply asserts a minimal definition of the term God. St Anslem is saying, in effect, that people who believe in God, believe in the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

Thus the only way to deny the existence of God, is to deny the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived. So, essentially, our human reality, must be, to deny God, the reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, of which none greater can be conceived, places the claimant in a very difficult position.

Of course before progressing to the second proposition, the first must be accepted. To be accepted, it must stand, in the face of all refutations.

jog on
duc

Do you think St Anslem had an ego-based attachment to the concept of a GOD duc?

 

[Bobby]

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, of which none greater can be conceived, places the claimant in a very difficult position.

Of course before progressing to the second proposition, the first must be accepted. To be accepted, it must stand, in the face of all refutations.

jog on
duc

Love your challenge duc , unfortunately the believers don't want to participate so far , one wonders why ?

 

[satanoperca]

My personal experience.

Lying in intensive care in a coma, what can I remember, not much, however;

What happened, heart stopped on three separate occasions. Stop breathing on many more. Our medical professionals are great.

So I was technically dead three times and yes I do remember there was a white light, transcending to heaven. No just the last pulses of electricity draining out of my body. Closest I wont to be to death. Miracle, no, medical advancement yes.

Show me a god so I can ask him why he created greed, pain and suffering that is happening all around the world.

Cheers

Satan

 

[ducati916]

Do you think St Anslem had an ego-based attachment to the concept of a GOD duc?

You know, I haven't the faintest idea.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Love your challenge duc , unfortunately the believers don't want to participate so far , one wonders why ?

Probably a bit early in the morning for the heathens - only the rightous are up this early.

jog on
duc

 

[Mofra]

So I was technically dead three times and yes I do remember there was a white light, transcending to heaven. No just the last pulses of electricity draining out of my body. Closest I wont to be to death. Miracle, no, medical advancement yes.

Thanks for sharing - personally I always find this sort of thing interesting.

Apparently it's not an uncommon experience, although it can often be interpreted different ways depending on a person's beliefs.

 

[disarray]

Proposition 1 simply asserts a minimal definition of the term God. St Anslem is saying, in effect, that people who believe in God, believe in the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

well it's BELIEF. you can't argue against faith which is why the whole thing is pointless. when you argue about god you are really just arguing with someones (skewed) perception of reality. so because you're arguing with a perception, you're aren't arguing about reality, therefore god isn't real except in the mind of the believer.

to be honest you're really just banging your head against someones inadequacies, as they have deliberately and willingly admitted that "there are limits to my conceptual capacity and ability". i reject that admission.

Thus the only way to deny the existence of God, is to deny the existence of a reality, of which none greater can be conceived. So, essentially, our human reality, must be, to deny God, the reality, of which none greater can be conceived.

so to deny the existence of god you have to deny the existence of something that isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable? well if something isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST, except as a figment of imagination. i am willing to concede that god is imaginary

this whole "god is so big you cannot conceive" argument is lame anyway. what can't we conceive? we can quantify, measure, and perceive the entire light / EM spectrum, subatomic particles, quantum effects, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. any gaps not filled in by mathematical (logical, testable and flexible when presented with new evidence) proofs provide a starting spot to start looking for evidence to fill in the gaps.

basically its the "you can't conceive it so you can't argue against it" and i reject this.

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality. To therefore claim, of which none greater can be conceived, places the claimant in a very difficult position.

all this is saying is "god" is on a sliding scale that we keep pushing beyond the boundaries of our knowledge for as long as is convenient. i disagree with this. there is no limit to our conception because it can follow logical principles from 0 to infinity, it just takes time to work through the steps. now i am by no means saying we perceive all of reality but we have the potential to conceive it, the means to test for it, then develop the tools to perceive it.

for proposition 1 to stand you must accept that our conception has limits. i disagree and state there is nothing we cannot eventually conceive so proposition 1 is invalid.

by maintaining there is something outside our conception, that will always be outside our conception, then you are applying an arbitrary limit to human conception and the onus on proof then becomes yours to prove the limits of our conception.

Probably a bit early in the morning for the heathens - only the rightous are up this early

yeah us stargazing heathens tend to be night owls

 

[Sidamo]

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history. As the history of man has progressed, so has our perception of reality and our experience of reality.

That's hardly a problem for science, it's more of a problem for Anslem's claim. It should be obvious that "something that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (henceforth STTWNGCBC) in 2000 AD is greater than STTWNGCBC in 1500 AD, which is turn greater than STTWNGCBC in 1000 AD and so on back into pre-history. Ergo, the "God" people believe in now is greater than the "God" people believed in back then, so obviously the "God" from back then wasn't actually "God" as per Anslem's definition, and it follows that "God" now will be less than "God" at any stage in the future, so "God" now can't be "God" either.

Also, it works in reverse too. Someone in 1000BC couldn't possibly conceive of our current reality, so they couldn't possibly conceive of something greater than our reality. Similarly, we can't possibly conceive of something greater than the reality of 3000AD (leaving Futurama aside) or any arbitrary date in the future.

 

[Boognish]

Those who subscribe to science, as essentially providing evidence, or proofs to God’s non-existence have a major difficulty to overcome. One of history.

Science makes no claim whatsoever about the existence or otherwise of a god. The process of science is one of creating a model to explain some natural phenomenon, called a hypothesis, and then testing/experimenting to try to prove that hypothesis wrong. If sufficient testing is done and thus sufficient evidence is gained as to the hypothesis' strength or weakness, it becomes what we call a theory: eg, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection etc.

Science by definition cannot say anything about whether a god/ghosts/psychics/unicorns etc exist because there is no testable evidence to support any of these concepts (or, in the case of psychics, the tests always fail). All science can do, and does, is provide testable explanations to natural phenomena that therefore do not require a supernatural explanation, eg a god.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with those who claim something does not exist, rather with those claim that something does.

 

[ducati916]

disarray

so to deny the existence of god you have to deny the existence of something that isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable? well if something isn't quantifiable, measurable, perceivable or conceivable THEN IT DOESN'T EXIST, except as a figment of imagination. i am willing to concede that god is imaginary

I'm going to refer you to the definition posted initially:

*A reality that transcends time and space.

To state that God is to be conceived as a reality that transcends time and space is to place emphasis on the point that God [in reality] does not conform to our notions of reality, as provided for by physics, chemistry, etc.

This is the point. Our bodies, our physical bodies, conform to the natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc. However our minds as distinct from our anatomical brain & CNS, do not [have to] conform to our physical laws.

well it's BELIEF. you can't argue against faith which is why the whole thing is pointless. when you argue about god you are really just arguing with someones (skewed) perception of reality. so because you're arguing with a perception, you're aren't arguing about reality, therefore god isn't real except in the mind of the believer.

I'm not at this point too concerned with either belief, nor faith. That road, I agree is a dead-end. What I am concerned with however is the mind, and it's ability to reason. I am not addressing reason solely with reasoning ability, rather: reason as cognition, reason as emotion, reason as taste, reason as conation, reason as acting. Currently, it would seem, that the entire business of reason, is to attain scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, is not considered knowledge at all, it is, for all intents, considered irrational.

Thus the arguments. The arguments need to be considered and accepted or refuted with logical argument, that if refuting, addresses the argument directly.

all this is saying is "god" is on a sliding scale that we keep pushing beyond the boundaries of our knowledge for as long as is convenient.

Again, I refer to the initial definition: beyond spatiotemporal constraints. I would expect God, the reality, to always be beyond our boundaries, until, we become God.

i disagree with this. there is no limit to our conception because it can follow logical principles from 0 to infinity, it just takes time to work through the steps.

You make this same point a little later in your post. I have addressed the issue there.

now i am by no means saying we perceive all of reality but we have the potential to conceive it, the means to test for it, then develop the tools to perceive it.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way, this is not actually offering an argument against the proposition. You are offering an opinion.

by maintaining there is something outside our conception, that will always be outside our conception, then you are applying an arbitrary limit to human conception and the onus on proof then becomes yours to prove the limits of our conception.

I'm positing [or rather St Anslem is] 1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived.

I am rather hopeful of the opposite, that humans will grow into the reality, I'm just not terribly optimistic on this point. However to your point: St Anslem is not instituting a sliding scale, that moves outwards, as we progress. The reason is again that God [reality] exists outside the spatitemporal physical. Physical progress, science of the physical, will never advance us to conception. Thus the onus of proving limits to conception are not required.

for proposition 1 to stand you must accept that our conception has limits. i disagree and state there is nothing we cannot eventually conceive so proposition 1 is invalid.

Agreed. For proposition 1 to stand, God, must be which none greater can be conceived. That you disagree, is not a valid argument. I take your line of reasoning however. It would seem that you are using progress in the sciences [technology] as evidence of a steady progression of conception.

I would actually argue quite the opposite. That outside of the sciences, the so called soft sciences, there has been retrogression and atrophy. One example being economics.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

sidamo

That's hardly a problem for science, it's more of a problem for Anslem's claim. It should be obvious that "something that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (henceforth STTWNGCBC) in 2000 AD is greater than STTWNGCBC in 1500 AD, which is turn greater than STTWNGCBC in 1000 AD and so on back into pre-history.

Ergo, the "God" people believe in now is greater than the "God" people believed in back then, so obviously the "God" from back then wasn't actually "God" as per Anslem's definition, and it follows that "God" now will be less than "God" at any stage in the future, so "God" now can't be "God" either.

But it's actually quite the opposite. People in St Anslems era were far more God fearing, religious, pious, etc. than they are today. Today, God is in disrepute, mocked by science. Thus God has been lessened in peoples perceptions by science. Therefore your argument contains an inaccuracy, on this basis, the proposition still holds.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

The burden of proof doesn't lie with those who claim something does not exist, rather with those claim that something does.

True. Which is what St Anslem attempted to do.

jog on
duc

 

[derty]

I'm going to refer you to the definition posted initially:

*A reality that transcends time and space.

To state that God is to be conceived as a reality that transcends time and space is to place emphasis on the point that God [in reality] does not conform to our notions of reality, as provided for by physics, chemistry, etc.

1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived

For God to transcend space and time he must be not of this universe and therefore exist external to it. Which would be true if he is the creator of this universe.

By conceive, if you mean; To apprehend mentally; understand.

Then: I cannot conceive what is not within this universe. I challenge any man to say he can. Therefore I personally cannot conceive God. If I cannot even conceive God it stands to reason that I cannot conceive a reality greater than God.

However if, By conceive, if you mean; To form or hold an idea

Then: yes I can imagine a God or being that transcends space and time. I can also imagine a God or reality greater than that one. And another greater than that one again.

 

[explod]

I'm not at this point too concerned with either belief, nor faith. That road, I agree is a dead-end.

jog on
duc

A dead end of course as those words, belief / faith are one and the same in the current context in my view. The distinguising factor is knowledge, to know, and we really do not know either way.

 

[disarray]

*A reality that transcends time and space

To state that God is to be conceived as a reality that transcends time and space is to place emphasis on the point that God [in reality] does not conform to our notions of reality, as provided for by physics, chemistry, etc.

there is nothing that transcends time and space, it is part of the system or it is nothing at all. once again the argument seems to be "it's too big for us to comprehend and outside our scope" which i disagree with.

if it is not measurable, quantifiable, perceptible or able to be conceptualised then it is cannot be a "reality" and so cannot be inhabited by "god".

However our minds as distinct from our anatomical brain & CNS, do not [have to] conform to our physical laws.

yes they do, because they are the sum of quantifiable processes. memory, imagination, conceptualisation are all ordered by-products of a physical, measurable, systemic stimulus / response procedure (that we are in the process of working out)

aren't you making a leap of faith to state that our mind is something transcendent when it is quite clearly just a lump of highly organised, wonderfully engineered, electrically charged, biochemically managed meat? there aren't any ghosts in the machine (and if you think there are the onus is on you to prove it)

I am not addressing reason solely with reasoning ability, rather: reason as cognition, reason as emotion, reason as taste, reason as conation, reason as acting. Currently, it would seem, that the entire business of reason, is to attain scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, is not considered knowledge at all, it is, for all intents, considered irrational.

but cognition, emotion, taste etc. are, once again, all measurable and quantifiable processes. i think our disconnect and what you and i won't be able to resolve is this simple fact -

i see everything as a measurable, quantifiable, systemic procedure. every single thing in the universe can (eventually) be unravelled and reduced to a sum / a system / a procedure. these concepts will all be testable under the scientific method and this "reality of which none greater can be conceived" is something we as a species will be able to understand.

you (or st. aslem) seem to see something ethereal outside of natural processes, transcending the universe, which can never be tested, proven or disproven. this belief can only be maintained by faith, the absence of data from those who disagree and arguing states of existence that do not, and cannot by definition, exist.

Again, I refer to the initial definition: beyond spatiotemporal constraints. I would expect God, the reality, to always be beyond our boundaries, until, we become God.

there is nothing outside spatiotemporal constraints so the very concept itself is meaningless. there's quite a few papers on this floating around, google "god outside spacetime" or something like where people smarter than me argue against this very point st. anslem makes.

I'm positing [or rather St Anslem is] 1 By the term God is meant a reality of which none greater can be conceived.

why define this ultimate reality as god rather than an process? do you accept that "god" can be a process? like an ultimate sum or a grand unified theory or something? in which case we're down to questions of definition.

Physical progress, science of the physical, will never advance us to conception. Thus the onus of proving limits to conception are not required.

says who? saying we will never understand the nature of the universe is merely an opinion and you are still required to prove that our conception will remain limited (by physical, technological, intellectual factors or what have you)

I would actually argue quite the opposite. That outside of the sciences, the so called soft sciences, there has been retrogression and atrophy. One example being economics.

this is irrelevant to the topic and also an opinion as this "retrogression" may very well be just part of the systemic cycle we are part of. BYO crystal ball of course

 

[So_Cynical]

As I have indicated, God, as depicted in the Bible etc is absolutely the wrong place to start.

A god that is not interventionist and all powerful and capable of miracles at any time...is simply not a god.

 

[Sidamo]

But it's actually quite the opposite. People in St Anslems era were far more God fearing, religious, pious, etc. than they are today. Today, God is in disrepute, mocked by science. Thus God has been lessened in peoples perceptions by science. Therefore your argument contains an inaccuracy, on this basis, the proposition still holds.

Not really. Whether people are more pious or not is irrelevant to the question at hand.

According to Anslem's proposition, God has to be greater than the entirety of the known universe. Our knowledge of the universe is far greater today than 1000 years ago, so it stands to reason that any god conceived of today which would satisfy Anslem's proposition would have to be far greater far greater than any conceived of by people 1000 years ago, and similarly, a conception of god from 1000 years in the future would be greater than today's conception. My argument still stands.

 

[ducati916]

For God to transcend space and time he must be not of this universe and therefore exist external to it. Which would be true if he is the creator of this universe.

By conceive, if you mean; To apprehend mentally; understand.

Then: I cannot conceive what is not within this universe. I challenge any man to say he can. Therefore I personally cannot conceive God. If I cannot even conceive God it stands to reason that I cannot conceive a reality greater than God.

However if, By conceive, if you mean; To form or hold an idea

Then: yes I can imagine a God or being that transcends space and time. I can also imagine a God or reality greater than that one. And another greater than that one again.

Interesting.

I can't actually definitively answer your question [challenge] as obviously I didn't write the proposition. As regards the progression, simply jump to the endpoint.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

A dead end of course as those words, belief / faith are one and the same in the current context in my view. The distinguising factor is knowledge, to know, and we really do not know either way.

Epistemology, and the arguments twixt Rationalism and Empiricism, can actually illuminate that in point of fact, we may know. Hold this thought, at the moment simply a definition is causing some problems.

jog on
duc