1. Post #81
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    No, we can't.

    For example, we can't rationally deduce the existence of god.
    Yes we can. I at least know I can.

    It's very simple actually; If it weren't for the people who developed the idea of a God, there wouldn't even be God who's existence we obviously can't "rationally deduce"

  2. Post #82
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    So? We can "rationally deduce" too much if you ask me. So indeed we went over and beyond just our eyes to sense and learn all the stuff that's out there and wherever.
    Name one thing that we can rationally deduce that's "too much". If it's too much, it's not rational deduction. Deduction is a very careful way of arguing; it's pure logic.

    Edited:

    Yes we can. I at least know I can.

    It's very simple actually; If it weren't for the people who developed the idea of a God, there wouldn't even be God who's existence we obviously can't "rationally deduce"
    are you serious

    you can rationally deduce the existence of god? if you've successfully proven deductively that god exists, i'm pretty sure I'd have read about you by now.

  3. Post #83
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    are you serious

    you can rationally deduce the existence of god? if you've successfully proven deductively that god exists, i'm pretty sure I'd have read about you by now.
    What? Did you read what I said? If anything, I "rationally deduced" that God doesn't exist. Pure fucking logic.
    Let me quote myself:
    If it weren't for the people who developed the idea of God, there wouldn't even be God who's existence we obviously can't "rationally deduce"

  4. Post #84
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    I'm not exactly sure what your argument is trying to prove. It seems kind of like saying "if humans didn't develop the concept of mathematics, then we couldn't use mathematics". If you're trying to actually use it as an argument about the existence of god then there's a couple issues with it:

    1) It presupposes that people "developed the idea of God" and is begging the question , a great deal of people see holy books like the bible as being "divinely inspired" not merely invented by humans.

    2) It's very well possible that God could exist somewhere even if humans didn't "develop the idea of God". God's existence does not have to be contingent on people spreading the word of his existence. After all, didn't he have to exist before humanity in order to create the universe?

    3) Your conclusion is non sequitur, it doesn't follow that even if people developed the idea of god, that we can't "rationally deduce" his existence using logical arguments.

  5. Post #85
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    Maths is different. (But I guess there wouldn't be maths either if it weren't for humans and the nice conditions we have here on our planet. Besides the point.)


    1) It presupposes that people "developed the idea of God" and is begging the question , a great deal of people see holy books like the bible as being "divinely inspired" not merely invented by humans.
    As much as I hate to say it.. they are wrong. And of course I assume or presuppose that people developed the idea of God. You make it sound like it's a logical fallacy.


    2) It's very well possible that God could exist somewhere even if humans didn't "develop the idea of God". God's existence does not have to be contingent on people spreading the word of his existence. After all, didn't he have to exist before humanity in order to create the universe?
    Yes it is very possible that SOME (even more powerful) could exist somewhere, like we humans exist here.


    3) Your conclusion is non sequitur, it doesn't follow that even if people developed the idea of god, that we can't "rationally deduce" his existence using logical arguments.
    Non sequitur, huh?

    So basically what you are saying is that, because we developed the idea of God, we now can't say he doesn't exist because we made it out so that he will remain unknown/unseen if he so pleases. That is funny to me.

  6. Post #86
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    What? Did you read what I said? If anything, I "rationally deduced" that God doesn't exist. Pure fucking logic.
    Let me quote myself:
    then why did you state 'yes we can' in disagreement with matsta?

    it was just a badly constructed response and confused the shit out of me

    Edited:

    Non sequitur, huh?

    So basically what you are saying is that, because we developed the idea of God, we now can't say he doesn't exist because we made it out so that he will remain unknown if he so pleases. That is funny to me.
    Being unknown or unknowable isn't stated anywhere in the ontological proof of God. It's irrelevant to the argument.

  7. Post #87
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    Being unknown or unknowable isn't stated anywhere in the ontological proof of God. It's irrelevant to the argument.
    What?

  8. Post #88
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    What what?

    Matsta said: "You can't rationally deduce the existence of god" to which you replied "Yes we can. At least I know I can."

    According to anyone capable of understanding english you were saying you can rationally deduce the existence of god.

  9. Post #89
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    According to anyone capable of understanding english you were saying you can rationally deduce the existence of god.
    Yes, its non-existence actually.

  10. Post #90
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    Yes, its non-existence actually.
    That's not god's existence then, that's god's non-existence. Which is not the same thing. In fact it's the exact opposite.

  11. Post #91
    Wouldn't that argument assume God exists already? God exists and is perfect, therefore his perfection exists, therefore he is perfect, therefore he exists?

  12. Post #92
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    That's not god's existence then, that's god's non-existence. Which is not the same thing. In fact it's the exact opposite.
    Well, God's existence is non-existent, or however you want to put it.

  13. Post #93
    Gold Member
    Hellduck's Avatar
    March 2007
    5,739 Posts
    Well, God's existence is non-existent, or however you want to put it.
    good god

  14. Post #94
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    Yes, its non-existence actually.
    surely you're not as silly as to believe existence is the same as non-existence

    Edited:

    Well, God's existence is non-existent, or however you want to put it.
    erm

    nah

  15. Post #95
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    If God's existence isn't non-existent, then how does God exist?

    For starters, it exists in people's mind. Just like the Superman, Batman, and that's probably blasphemy comparing God to a fictional superhero, but God is a fictional superhero too if you think. So God does indeed exist in a way.

  16. Post #96
    maps aren't territories

  17. Post #97
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    If God's existence isn't non-existent, then how does God exist?

    For starters, it exists in people's mind. Just like the Superman, Batman, and that's probably blasphemy comparing God to a fictional superhero, but God is a fictional superhero too if you think. So God does indeed exist in a way.
    You think Superman exists?

    Edited:

    your ontology is slightly insane.

  18. Post #98
    Gold Member
    fluke42's Avatar
    November 2011
    484 Posts
    If God's existence isn't non-existent, then how does God exist?

    For starters, it exists in people's mind. Just like the Superman, Batman, and that's probably blasphemy comparing God to a fictional superhero, but God is a fictional superhero too if you think. So God does indeed exist in a way.
    Ok, now this is coming from a philosophy minor, so bear with me here: Your logic and deductive reasoning skills are utter crap.

  19. Post #99
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    You think Superman exists?

    Edited:

    your ontology is slightly insane.
    yes superman exists in the same way as god exists, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.

  20. Post #100
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    yes superman exists in the same way as god exists, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.


    really?

  21. Post #101
    Lilyo's Avatar
    October 2011
    2,366 Posts
    yes superman exists in the same way as god exists, you'd be stupid to think otherwise.
    haha, beautiful logic.

  22. Post #102
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    yes, really.

    I don't even see how you could disagree with that, or call it a logical fallacy or invalid deduction or whatever the fuck.

  23. Post #103
    we don't have to go as far as calling it a logical fallacy

    you're just wrong

  24. Post #104
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    yes, really.

    I don't even see how you could disagree with that, or call it a logical fallacy or invalid deduction or whatever the fuck.
    It's not a logical fallacy or invalid deduction it's just a bad ontology. If you have ontological commitment to fictional characters, you're being way too liberal. There is no entity in the world that is superman. If I could survey the whole world, I wouldn't find any X that is he.

    There have been philosophers in the past who have tried to argue for the subsistence of non-existent objects (Meinong comes to mind) but very few philosophers take these seriously.

  25. Post #105
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    I never said Superman or God entities exist anywhere in the world (be it our world or the external world) for real, but there is an entity called "Superman" as well as "God" and "Batman", they are all entities that exist, but obviously I'm not saying like there is an actual Gotham City or Eve's Garden/Paradise somewhere, because there isn't.

  26. Post #106
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    You sound very linguistically confused. In contemporary philosophy, if something exists it is an object. Unless you're some kind of platonist (lol) and you're arguing for a realm of abstract objects, there are no such things as objects that exist outside of spacetime.

  27. Post #107
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    If something existing has to be an object (obviously), then God, Batman and Superman don't exist. Which is also fine by me of course.

  28. Post #108
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    If something existing has to be an object (obviously), then God, Batman and Superman don't exist. Which is also fine by me of course.
    so why were you arguing that god and batman do exist?

  29. Post #109
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    so why were you arguing that god and batman do exist?
    Earlier you said "nah" to when I said "God's existence is non-existent" so.. I don't know.

    And can't you realize that Batman does exist in comic books, films and as materialistic action figures. So to me that is Batman existing.

    I was just basically arguing how these characters exist, even if they don't exist as REAL living beings like you and me.

  30. Post #110
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    Earlier you said "nah" to when I said "God's existence is non-existent" so.. I don't know.
    I would assume he said that just because that claim is self contradictory

    And can't you realize that Batman does exist in comic books, films and as materialistic action figures. So to me that is Batman existing.

    I was just basically arguing how these characters exist, even if they don't exist as REAL living beings like you and me.
    The films and comic books exist. That doesn't mean batman exists.
    Holy books exist, and that also doesn't mean god exists.

  31. Post #111
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    Of course not. So they exist in literature/films/whatever.

  32. Post #112
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    Of course not. So they exist in literature/films/whatever.
    Surely you must agree that existence of something in literature/films does not translate to its existence in reality. It seems your definition of "exist" is misleading.

  33. Post #113
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    Yes I agree that Batman existing in comic books does not translate to Batman existing in reality. So yes my definition of "exist" is something else, misleading even.


    But I think my definition of "exist" is also reasonable;

    Because if there's thousands of pages of literature about God ranging back hundreds of years, people talking about God every day, people talking TO God (Being crazies) then God does indeed exist within us. Which on the other hand is crazy, because by your normal definition, God doesn't exist.

  34. Post #114
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    It's a very misleading way of talking, to the point you should shun that whole meaning of the word.

    Consider the sentence, does the 10 foot pink elephant exist?
    Obviously not.
    But then I write a short story including Sam the 10 foot pink elephant and his adventure to hell.
    According to your silly notion of existence, 'the 10 foot pink elephant exists' is suddenly true, which is huuuuugely unintuitive.

    According to Grice's Razor, we shouldn't multiply the meanings of words unnecessarily, so we should just drop the whole notion of existence having two senses.

  35. Post #115
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    13,363 Posts
    Hell, you could say the pink 10-foot elephant exists in your mind. But it's nothing of.. importance, of course.

  36. Post #116
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Hell no.

    Edited:

    (LOL you're discussing about the existence of God and won't even agree about what does "existence" means)

  37. Post #117
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Ok, about these discussion about what does the question "does X exist?" means, I think that the meaning of the question depends on the context and on the meaning of "X".

    For example, if you ask if the 10-foot pink elephant exist you are asking if there 10-feet pink elephant is or isn't in the world.

    If you ask if love exists then you are not asking if there is 'love' in the world, or, the same, if there is something which we can encounter that coincides with what we previously defined as 'love'. Of course we won't find 'love' as as physical object. But humans can 'encounter' love and other abstract concepts in their lives, and if WE DEFINE IT AS AN ABSTRACT OBJECT, then the proposition "love exists" can be true.

    just what I think, btw.

  38. Post #118
    [IT] Zodiac's Avatar
    August 2009
    83 Posts
    I'm necroposting here just to point out what I think is the worst possible approach to philosophy ever. You're all thinking of Descartes, Anselmo d'Aosta, Kant or whatever, like:

    A) You are their contemporary: that means you see their theories as something you have to disprove cause you do not agree with them. That's wrong. Philosophy is dead, you don't have to disprove anything. Actually, you're the only one who are taking the proof of existence of God as an actual factual demonstration that God exists. Cartesius didn't think it that way, Scholastics scolars didn't think it that way, even Thomas Aquin didn't think it that way. It's not that you ACTUALLY have to prove that God exist. In scholastic, medieval and protomodern mindset, God exists period. You don't have to actually prove his existence, you just might need it for theological, logical, metaphisical or whatever studies.

    B) They used to think as you do now. That's the worst possible thing you can do while studying history, philosophy or any kind of litterature: another age means another line of thought, and sometimes it can be COMPLETELY different. Take the Greeks: they thought of the finite as the most perfect thing, while we think the exact opposite. Or Saint Augustine: the soul of a person is NOT his personality, his experiences or his emotions, and just as before, we think the exact opposite (and, incredibly, thanks to Descartes and his "res cogitans").

    So actually all this conversation it's just a big, long, sterile lesson on the ontological argument.

  39. Post #119
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    I'm necroposting here just to point out what I think is the worst possible approach to philosophy ever. You're all thinking of Descartes, Anselmo d'Aosta, Kant or whatever, like:

    A) You are their contemporary: that means you see their theories as something you have to disprove cause you do not agree with them. That's wrong. Philosophy is dead, you don't have to disprove anything. Actually, you're the only one who are taking the proof of existence of God as an actual factual demonstration that God exists. Cartesius didn't think it that way, Scholastics scolars didn't think it that way, even Thomas Aquin didn't think it that way. It's not that you ACTUALLY have to prove that God exist. In scholastic, medieval and protomodern mindset, God exists period. You don't have to actually prove his existence, you just might need it for theological, logical, metaphisical or whatever studies.

    B) They used to think as you do now. That's the worst possible thing you can do while studying history, philosophy or any kind of litterature: another age means another line of thought, and sometimes it can be COMPLETELY different. Take the Greeks: they thought of the finite as the most perfect thing, while we think the exact opposite. Or Saint Augustine: the soul of a person is NOT his personality, his experiences or his emotions, and just as before, we think the exact opposite (and, incredibly, thanks to Descartes and his "res cogitans").

    So actually all this conversation it's just a big, long, sterile lesson on the ontological argument.
    I may agree with most of what you said there, but what are you talking about when you say that philosophy is dead? As long as there is a human living in the world there will be some kind of philosophy.

  40. Post #120
    [IT] Zodiac's Avatar
    August 2009
    83 Posts
    I may agree with most of what you said there, but what are you talking about when you say that philosophy is dead? As long as there is a human living in the world there will be some kind of philosophy.
    What I mean is that philosophy, as a discipline, is already dead. It has been for almost half a century (I think the last one could be Wittgenstein, but it's all rather blurry to discern). There are no more important thoughts formed or minds at work. What you study is not philosophy in itself, it's just history of philosophy. With that said, just interrogating yourself on things is not sufficient to call yourself a philosopher, even of some sort. I could understand while someone might think that, but that's just lowering a noble discipline to banal, everyday metaphisical questions that everyone, at some points of his life, happens to make, like "What are we?", "What is the sense of life?" and so on.