03-02-2013, 10:40 PM
Jimbopdxus, I don´t argue that people should not believe in God ._.
I´m not sure I know the details of both the ontological argument or the platonic world of ideas (I think of this last one I do in part), so I´m not going to respond to them or defend them. Allow me to just focus on your clarifications, although I´m not good at organizing arguments in a very methodological way (I´m not even sure if “methodological” is the proper word).
Ok, definitions… no. I´m speaking of that which the word Justice is trying to reference, and that which the word God is trying to reference as well (as twos separate and independent examples). Another word instead of “reference” would be “capture/grasp/limit”. I could not properly divide between imaginary existence and real-strong existence, which I believe is the differentiation you are making. I do speak of a something outside words that urges for existence, and that we effectively give existence to (Ej. Laws for justice, or religious expressions for God).
Allow me to sit and think for a way to synthetize in a sentence the closest thing I can get of a definition in the sense you´re asking, although I find this a little bit tricky as it is not consistent with what I´m trying to present.
EDIT:
I never thought of this, but are there minimal requirements for a definition? Some system to write a valid definition? (I´m not giving up on writing you a definition, it´s just a random thought I just had)
OrphanPip Wrote:I'm having difficulty determining exactly what you are trying to say. However, it just seems like you are floating somewhere around the ontological argument for God. Your insistence on God not existing in the objective sense just seems to be a formulation of the Platonic idea of forms, which leads to a conventional ontological argument:
- Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
- The idea of God exists in the mind.
- A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
- If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
- We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
- Therefore, God exists.
However, I feel you are being inconsistent and slippery in your use of terms which leads to incoherence in your argument. Any attempt to argue for the existence of God first requires defining clearly what is meant by the terms used, including the concept of existence itself.
I´m not sure I know the details of both the ontological argument or the platonic world of ideas (I think of this last one I do in part), so I´m not going to respond to them or defend them. Allow me to just focus on your clarifications, although I´m not good at organizing arguments in a very methodological way (I´m not even sure if “methodological” is the proper word).
Ok, definitions… no. I´m speaking of that which the word Justice is trying to reference, and that which the word God is trying to reference as well (as twos separate and independent examples). Another word instead of “reference” would be “capture/grasp/limit”. I could not properly divide between imaginary existence and real-strong existence, which I believe is the differentiation you are making. I do speak of a something outside words that urges for existence, and that we effectively give existence to (Ej. Laws for justice, or religious expressions for God).
Allow me to sit and think for a way to synthetize in a sentence the closest thing I can get of a definition in the sense you´re asking, although I find this a little bit tricky as it is not consistent with what I´m trying to present.
EDIT:
I never thought of this, but are there minimal requirements for a definition? Some system to write a valid definition? (I´m not giving up on writing you a definition, it´s just a random thought I just had)