Jimbopdxus, I don´t argue that people should not believe in God ._.
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)
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
You could say that laws have a kind of non-material existence because humans have created them and constantly reinforce them. We have defined for ourselves what exactly a law is and what its characteristics are. However, when it comes to our idea of God there are no clear definitions. Throughout our history our ideas, thoughts and versions of divine entities have varied immensely. And we're not doing anything to reinforce one idea of God in order for our belief in itself to give birth to some abstract concept we could refer to as divine. I don't see any logic in these claims.
•
SolemnBoy Wrote:We have defined for ourselves what exactly a law is and what its characteristics are.
I have to disagree on that immensely. Though I don´t say that the example of God is the same as Justice. We have no historical definition of Justice (laws are secondary) nor of its characteristics. You don’t really need to go that far, Justice in capitalism is very different than that conceived under communism. Or for arguments sake, what would you say Justice is (to take one example in my argument)?
I mean, to a certain point each religion has indeed defined what exactly they are and their characteristics (regardless of their validity), likewise, this variety of examples applies for laws as well, as we cannot speak of a unified legal system that is valid everywhere even today (in essence, even how laws [and justice] are handled are essentially different in, for example, the U.S. with its common law, and México, with is civil law)
•
Well yes, but once you formulate a law you give it specific characteristics - even if those are different between various countries. God, however, as most people see him is a being that's somewhat vague and filled with contradictory traits. For one, he is omnipotent but also immortal - contradiction.
Furthermore, why would our belief in a divine concept be justifiable because our belief in itself is what gave birth to it? How come we're not praising the concept of justice itself instead, which is not the same as praising a God/the concept of God?
•
SolemnBoy Wrote:Well yes, but once you formulate a law you give it specific characteristics - even if those are different between various countries. God, however, as most people see him is a being that's somewhat vague and filled with contradictory traits. For one, he is omnipotent but also immortal - contradiction.
Furthermore, why would our belief in a divine concept be justifiable because our belief in itself is what gave birth to it? How come we're not praising the concept of justice itself instead, which is not the same as praising a God/the concept of God?
Well… marriage was a very specific concept under the law. And why is Justice not praised? I think it has been praised even religiously as an independent concept in the past, but I wouldn’t be able to give you a specific reference (homework). Also, I´m not saying that Justice is God, or vice versa, so we´re speaking of two different concepts/ideas.
On your question, I could ask what justifies the concept of Justice (it is/has been vague, it has caused bad things and good things)? But I think that´ll be distracting the issue, as I´m not speaking of Justice Jajaja give me some time, I don´t want to extend this without actually clarifying my position in the most consistent way possible 
•
Okay, but how about this then: If masses of people believing in a concept provides it with some kind of power and existence, then that means it wouldn't necessarily have to be under divine circumstances. Anything could be worshipped with the same result. The fact that a lot of people would believe in it wouldn't make it any less of a delusion.
•
SolemnBoy Wrote:Okay, but how about this then: If masses of people believing in a concept provides it with some kind of power and existence, then that means it wouldn't necessarily have to be under divine circumstances. Anything could be worshipped with the same result. The fact that a lot of people would believe in it wouldn't make it any less of a delusion.
You´re giving a very precise definition of ideology in the first sentence, but that is a subject for another discussion. And yes, I agree with the rest, nevertheless most of what is human is delusional for that matter (I actually believe this, I´m not trying to make your statement sound absurd jaja).
•
"God is either powerless, or unimaginably cruel."
-Dr. Gregory House
•
Counselor Wrote:"God is either powerless, or unimaginably cruel."
-Dr. Gregory House
Or simply weak (and murderable?)
•
Ok, I cannot give “it” a name, because the name is secondary (Ej. God, Justice, Democracy, etc… . The first idea is quite generic, not God-specific. If I can explain “this” I think everything else is going to be more easily understood (and rejected or considered).
[Two glasses of wine later] Sorry, I really can’t summarize it in one simple sentences or small points. If anyone is still interested I can keep on discussing the general idea for anyone to find debatable points, but I really can’t put it in a strict and concise definition. I´ll try to expand a little bit to see if I can clarify myself.
Quick note: I tend to use Justice as an example since God tends to bring up some sort of resentment on one part, and over-seriousness on the other, when being discussed.
Ok, words try to grasp reality. It may be something simple as “chair” (which is there, and you can see) and more complex ideas such as “love” or “justice”. Words are not strict, non-changing, and independent from context. So, in a way, you can say that words are an attempt to grasp reality in many different levels (technical or abstract for example). The word Justice, for example, may not be enough to fully grasp what we want to indicate as Justice. BUT Justice is not just a word (as “chair” because Justice is something that requires us to do something. Laws are a way to make Justice real.
I don´t know if with this Justice example the general idea is understood as for me to try to move forward to the God issue ._.
Note: I´m pretty sure I´m not speaking in platonic terms
•
|
