Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The death of God?

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:20:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A casual Fool's version
Proof of the non-existence of god (simplified)
To have faith in something is to expect that something to be true/exist.

For let that something be the content of a belief/faith

1.Let x be the content of the belief:
2.Let F be expectation:

Tautology:

A=A Therefore existence=existence
Thus a contradiction is false.

If the only criteria for the existence of x also contradicts x's existence then existence based on such a criteria is FALSE. Therefore x is false.

For let F=faith let G=God let E= existence

Logical form of argument:

1.EG
Let's assume God exist.

2.E->F
Since existence of god depends on the criteria of Faith

3. F->~EG
And it is equally true by faith that god does not exist

4.~EG
A faith based god does not exist

C. 1&4 (EG&~EG)
Therefore a God which depends on faith alone has FALSE existence.

QED

The Fool says: Nothing follows from expectation alone but expectation alone.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Premise 2 is sketchy. Simply because God (at least the montheistic conception like the Judaeo-Christian God) wants you to have faith in him, doesn't mean his existence is contingent upon your faith or lackthereof in him. I would hope you believe I (the person responding to you) exist, but even if you did or didn't, that has no bearing on my existence.

And if I'm not mistaken, I don't think any of the major theistic religions have presented an anti-realist approach to God's existence (i.e. you must believe in him in order for him to exist). If they did, then your argument would be sound to those religions.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 10:41:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since when can you pair math with philosophy, relgion and abstract intellectual arguments and think that you can declare God dead?

Honestly that was a jumble of garbage.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.

I grant everything is real and exist. you couldnt talk about it if it didnt have some form of existence.
The problem is to get by being more then simply a conceptual(mental/imaginary)

For we all have a conception of god. That is self-evident with the thought. The problem is getting beyond just an idea.
I appreaciate the critism. I am looking to test its durability.

I encourage the critism, but there is 2 rules.

Rule 1: don't repeat what somebody has said already.
Rule 2: don't attack me personally
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:09:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.

I grant everything is real and exist. you couldnt talk about it if it didnt have some form of existence.
The problem is to get by being more then simply a conceptual(mental/imaginary)

For we all have a conception of god. That is self-evident with the thought. The problem is getting beyond just an idea.
I appreaciate the critism. I am looking to test its durability.

I encourage the critism, but there is 2 rules.

Rule 1: don't repeat what somebody has said already.
Rule 2: don't attack me personally

It's not false knowledge. To us religious folk its history.

The Old Testiment is history and requires the same ammount of faith for me to believe in the Bible as it does for me to believe in my history text book.

I believe in George Washington so it's not a stretch to believe in Jesus too.

The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in it.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:11:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:09:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.

I grant everything is real and exist. you couldnt talk about it if it didnt have some form of existence.
The problem is to get by being more then simply a conceptual(mental/imaginary)

For we all have a conception of god. That is self-evident with the thought. The problem is getting beyond just an idea.
I appreaciate the critism. I am looking to test its durability.

I encourage the critism, but there is 2 rules.

Rule 1: don't repeat what somebody has said already.
Rule 2: don't attack me personally

It's not false knowledge. To us religious folk its history.

The Old Testiment is history and requires the same ammount of faith for me to believe in the Bible as it does for me to believe in my history text book.

I believe in George Washington so it's not a stretch to believe in Jesus too.

The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in it.

Sigged. You really are on a roll today.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:18:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.


Strictly speaking, you can't have knowledge based on belief alone; that it is only one of necessary conditions required for something to count as knowledge.
And, necessarily, all knowledge involves belief. And there's no such thing as "false" knowledge. "Knowledge" necessarily has a truth condition. You can't "know" something that's not true. Just as you can't know something without believing that same something.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:26:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 10:41:31 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Firstly is not a declaration.. its a question? I am testing out the model. To see if it can hold up to critism. Maybe it will maybe it won't.

With what justification do you modify the clear and obvious claim made here to something declaration.

Secondly you have to get around the problem of who is ignorant, is it me or you,
because if we don't understand it. It will always appear jumbling like the end of a complex math book in a class you just started.. That is, as you learn through a math or logic course the end of the text appears less and less jumbling. How are you accounting for such a confound in your analyse? What is your motivation to write something from an past debate in this forum?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:30:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rule 3: make and argument not a statement.

atleast one premise..and a conclusion.
I am just want intellectual critism. not hate. or hostility.
you dont even know If I am religious or not.. or anything about who I am..
so pls just work with the arguments I present.

I am not intrested in opinions right now but rather arguments..
Cheers
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:31:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:18:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.


Strictly speaking, you can't have knowledge based on belief alone; that it is only one of necessary conditions required for something to count as knowledge.
And, necessarily, all knowledge involves belief. And there's no such thing as "false" knowledge. "Knowledge" necessarily has a truth condition. You can't "know" something that's not true. Just as you can't know something without believing that same something.

This. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:35:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:09:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.

I grant everything is real and exist. you couldnt talk about it if it didnt have some form of existence.
The problem is to get by being more then simply a conceptual(mental/imaginary)

For we all have a conception of god. That is self-evident with the thought. The problem is getting beyond just an idea.
I appreaciate the critism. I am looking to test its durability.

I encourage the critism, but there is 2 rules.

Rule 1: don't repeat what somebody has said already.
Rule 2: don't attack me personally

It's not false knowledge. To us religious folk its history.

The Old Testiment is history and requires the same ammount of faith for me to believe in the Bible as it does for me to believe in my history text book.

I believe in George Washington so it's not a stretch to believe in Jesus too.

The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in it.

its not the same... those events are not claiming magic or supernatural entities.. for I may say we don't have much prove of socrates but no mystical claims being here. its his ideas.. the bible has some good ones to .. Some are very reasonable for the time..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:18:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.
Fool false.. I all read accounted for this..
for example I have a conception of a Leprachaun but I don't believe in them..
that is the thought if the proof.. its tru regardless if I believe it or not..
If I forget later that I had thought and don't believe it, it will still be that this time in this moment I had that thought.. my believe right now would only be superflous to the matter.. its not belief depended.
but good objection non the less..

also may feel pain or have an experience that is always true I could never be wrong that I am experiencing something. belief or not. Next ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:18:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's no such thing as "false" knowledge. "Knowledge" necessarily has a truth condition. .
good critism pop!

One thing we know about the truth for sure. Is that the truth is the truth.
Truth=Truth that is it is synomous with itself or it would be not true. RIght?

If it is not the true then it is false.. right?
That is the proof the law of non-condradiction.
So a contradiction is alway false

e.g IS NOT.. implies it IS the CASE that IT IS NOT the case..
so what is not is false....because its not there

False knowlede is not knowledge.... you are right ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 11:57:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:31:30 PM, Skyhook wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:18:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:06:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 10:06:44 PM, Skyhook wrote:
Premise 2 is sketchy.
But a religion is a faith/believe system. So you still have to pass that obstacle first. For the truth that the bible or any religion actually refers to anything more then an imagination off faith alone will still end up a false.

All knowledge based from believe alone will turn out as false knowledge.


Strictly speaking, you can't have knowledge based on belief alone; that it is only one of necessary conditions required for something to count as knowledge.
And, necessarily, all knowledge involves belief. And there's no such thing as "false" knowledge. "Knowledge" necessarily has a truth condition. You can't "know" something that's not true. Just as you can't know something without believing that same something.

This. Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Rule 2: is to not repeat the samething someone else has already said.. unless you are not satified with my answer.. tell me which part and I will explain as clear as I can..
keep up the good work..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 12:24:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Non-belief based knowledge:
E.g. I have an idea of a Leprachaun, It cannot be a belief because I don't believe in Leprachauns.
That is I have a mental conception of a leprachaun, Right? Well all do if we know what the word means. The truth of this concept is self-evident in the thought of it.
Whether I expect it or not. it would only be superflous.
e.g. Cogito.. "I think therefore I am" Descartes.

We could never be wrong about what we consciously thinking or feeling.
Independent whether we belief it or not. To expect it is superflous to the truth of it.

Believe is one type of thought. The fact that we have a belief is always true, by thought alone.. but whether that thing I believe in being more the a idea must depend upon something else.. other then simply that.. aka evidence.

Three important points:
1. self-evident truth (thought, experiences,emotions, sensations)
2. believe/expectation (an expecation/trutst that something is true)
3. knowledge aka believe+evidence (non-contradictory)
4. certified knowledge (logically/mathmatically deducible knowledge)

and that is straight from the hill... ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 12:27:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:07:37 PM, MarquisX wrote:
That was horrid.

In what sense?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 4:19:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 9:20:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A casual Fool's version
Proof of the non-existence of god (simplified)
To have faith in something is to expect that something to be true/exist.

For let that something be the content of a belief/faith

1.Let x be the content of the belief:
2.Let F be expectation:

Tautology:

A=A Therefore existence=existence
Thus a contradiction is false.

If the only criteria for the existence of x also contradicts x's existence then existence based on such a criteria is FALSE. Therefore x is false.

For let F=faith let G=God let E= existence

Logical form of argument:

1.EG
Let's assume God exist.

2.E->F
Since existence of god depends on the criteria of Faith

3. F->~EG
And it is equally true by faith that god does not exist

4.~EG
A faith based god does not exist

C. 1&4 (EG&~EG)
Therefore a God which depends on faith alone has FALSE existence.

QED

The Fool says: Nothing follows from expectation alone but expectation alone.

Australia exists.. Telling yourself it doesn't won't make it disappear..

Everyone instinctively knows there's a creator God, but we see the consequences of this and decide to kill it, to murder the truth within us..
The Cross.. the Cross.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 5:02:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 12:27:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:07:37 PM, MarquisX wrote:
That was horrid.

In what sense?

Well you write like you're trying to do everything in your power to seem smart when in reality you actually look like you don't know what you're talking about.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 7:23:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 5:02:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/30/2012 12:27:16 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/29/2012 11:07:37 PM, MarquisX wrote:
That was horrid.

In what sense?

Well you write like you're trying to do everything in your power to seem smart when in reality you actually look like you don't know what you're talking about.

I think what you mean is that you infer from my writing, I don't think I could go beyond the power words here, if that is in all my power, I agree. but with what motive do do you infer seeming, vs anything else. I would be enlighten to understand your demarcation from the real and not real..
lastly what is with the hostility......

cheers...From a Fool...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 7:34:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 4:19:31 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:.

"Australia exists.. Telling yourself it doesn't won't make it disappear.." lol
IF you don't get it pls don't say random sh*t like this...Just ask me a question and I will explain it.

I am sure telling your self is nothing more then telling yours.. but there is noting about telling you self which is related ... I think missed mi

If we all instincly have knowledge then there would nothing about god to debate about right.? But those are quite the power to know my instinct..

again criticise the argument not me.... I am not the argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 7:43:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your entire argument falls apart if someone provides any basis for God existing in a logical sense. The existence of God does not depend solely on faith, I mean if you look at it in that perspective as human beings, who are not scientists, we only have faith that there are solar systems outside the Milky Way Galaxy. Does that mean that for us these other solar systems do not exist?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 10:24:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 7:43:00 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Your entire argument falls apart if someone provides any basis for God existing in a logical sense. The existence of God does not depend solely on faith, I mean if you look at it in that perspective as human beings, who are not scientists, we only have faith that there are solar systems outside the Milky Way Galaxy. Does that mean that for us these other solar systems do not exist?

That is a very good point. The argument is there to be criticized.. that I how I test its worth..
But your objection has aready been accounted for that is why it refers to a god only known through a believe system this involve the truth of any book saying its the word of god.. you need to have more the faith or it will always come up as false.. of course if we had evident we would all believe.. no body doesnt want a god..

NO offense BOMB but I already countered your argument with the Cartesian doubt. . that is all science (in the way you know it now anyways) is based of a probabilty. Did you even read my refutation at all.. ???????????
that is the mind is for sure 'I exist therefore I am" but your sense information is probable..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skyhook
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 10:47:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I'm understanding you correctly, it looks like your trying to refute the basic ontological argument. I would've been a little more clear just to title your argument as "Against the Ontological Argument for God's Existence" rather than the death of God. I think you could better phrase premise 2 to fit OA. There are other forms of the OA though that are stronger.

If your intent isn't to refute the ontological argument then I'm not sure what you're getting at with beliefs, knowledge, etc. If your concern is that all beliefs based on faith are false then you basically arrive at antecedent skepticism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 12:51:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 10:47:37 PM, Skyhook wrote:
If I'm understanding you correctly, it looks like your trying to refute the basic ontological argument.

Not really I am granting that everything exist or we could be speaking about it..
The problem is the form of existence....

existence =existence Thus whatever contradicts this does not exist
as alway a contradition is false..

The ontalogical argument will only proves an existence of an idea of god. (mental conception) but that is not what we want.

What I showed with the proof is that the content of a believe must have something else (evidence or logicaly demonstrated or self-evident) to be knowlede or to show existence

Why, because an expectation is different then the content(the thing you expect to be true. So expecation is not the content... so only that dependent on that alone with come up false.... unless of course you are expecting for expecting to be true...lol but expecting=expecting anyway.. so it is just trivial. Plus expecting is a thought..

So that is always self-evident anyways... the mistake most people and I mean most as in 99.5% percent of people in the world tend to muttle the difference between:
1. a thought(any thought) 2. the expectation(trust) 3. the content(what we expect to be true)

Why do these problems happen? there is no system of holding the ideas(inner definintion with the definion or the word.

The function of language is to communicate our ideas... but because we are so trained to treat the physical word as real or existing, people think it the word(phyiscal symbol) is the meaning. so they manipulate defintions because they think that is actually the meaning.(thus you have all this relative meaning garbage ideaology we are in) because they are blinded by this illusion.

Changing the definition really changes the subject all together but it gives the illusion that you are still talking about the same thing.. But most people can't tell the difference that is (99.9%.) and this causes complete confusion between figuring anything out about the word..

Proof?
do you ever have something in your mind you want to say but you can't think of the word on name(its called the tip of the tongue phenomina) but you know exactly what you mean... that is you have the ideas.. but you can't think if the relating word used to express it...... also something we can't kind the words to say what we mean.. sometimes we can read something complex and understand the words.. but you don't have the conceptualization complexity to understand the idea the writter is expressing..

Here is just a random sentence from Kants critique of pure reason:
"The manifold that is given in a sensible intuition necessarly belongs under the original synthetic unity of apperception, since through this alone is the unity of the intuition possible" Immanuel Kant.

Practice dealing with thinking abtractly and advanced complex conceptions will improve your ability to work with complex ideas.

. IF you Hate and don't understand it .. you will say that is doesn't make sense.

Like ConservativePolitico "Since when can you pair math with philosophy, relgion and abstract intellectual arguments and think that you can declare God dead? Honestly that was a jumble of garbage."

Again:
The manifold that is given in a sensible intuition necessarly belongs under the original synthetic unity of apperception, since through this alone is the unity of the intuition possible" Immanuel Kant.

Translation: Complex ideas come from adding smaller ones(concepts) together to to be seen as one thing.

The manifold: many things(variation)

Given sensible intuition: self-evident thought/ideas

Belongs under the original synthetic unity of apperception: the thing the sums together

The unity of the intuition possible: experiencing as a whole(a mentel of physical object)

The fool: I am just on a tangent now I showed be studying. got to go
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:16:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 9:29:04 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Just out of curiosity why does the existence of God have to depend on faith alone?
Story book bible says it can't of genuine christians -

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead. . . . . . . . and by works was faith made perfect? ? (James 2:20, 22) KJV Story book
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 3:20:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 11:09:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I believe in George Washington so it's not a stretch to believe in Jesus too.
There is legitimate & verifiable Historical evidence of a literal George Washington.

Conversely there is NONE for the biblical jesus outside of bible Story book land!

At 1/29/2012 11:09:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in it.
What do you allegedly ' believe in it concerning? '.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 4:28:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 3:16:00 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/29/2012 9:29:04 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Just out of curiosity why does the existence of God have to depend on faith alone?
Story book bible says it can't of genuine christians -
lol.. the truth of the book depends on faith anyway.. lol.. ;/
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 4:57:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 9:20:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Logical form of argument:

1.EG
Let's assume God exist.

2.E->F
Since existence of god depends on the criteria of Faith

P2 isn't just "sketchy" - it's flat out incorrect. Not only does this contradict everything that we know from (so-called) "revealed theology," it leads us to the conclusion that if everyone stopped having faith, God would cease to exist... but one of the very criteria of actual existence is the existence independent of the mind.

3. F->~EG
And it is equally true by faith that god does not exist

I think you mean ~F -> ~EG. Because otherwise, this is a completely unwarranted assumption whereby you've essentially asserted your conclusion as premises. Woop-de-doo.

4.~EG
A faith based god does not exist

C. 1&4 (EG&~EG)
Therefore a God which depends on faith alone has FALSE existence.

Interestingly enough, the conclusion is correct, despite the paucity of logical reasoning used to arrive at it. A god that depends on faith alone only exists in the minds of the believers. It's very, very simple, and needs no logical explanation.