Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Things are either logically possible or impossible. God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible. Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible. The universe, however, cannot be eternal so nothing is necessary state of affair. The process of nothing to something, therefore, is possible since something is possible.

“What is the need for God?”

It depends on what the truth of reality actually is.

If it is possible that our universe is founded upon a Berkeleyan form of idealism, then if God’s mind and consciousness did not exist, then neither would this particular universe exist (therefore, no us).

If such is the case, then the “need for God” would be pretty obvious.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:07 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:39 pm
Everything that is logically possible could be real. The point that I am trying to make is that nothing is not a thing so it cannot persist to exist since you have no time in nothing, therefore we could have nothing to something if something is logically possible.

The universe, of course, was possible.

I don't think so.

bahman: Everything that is logically possible could be real.

Surely you are aware of the basic rule in logic, i.e. difference between 'logical' and 'sound'.
What is logically possible [proper syllogism] may not be sound.

Yes, I know the difference. Why my argument does not sound?

The point is, what is logically possible could real and unreal.

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.
  God is logically possible.
  Therefore God is real.

Your argument seems proper but it is unsound that God is real.
It is impossible for God to be real.

bahman wrote: What is the need for God?

From my own personal perspective of reality, I suggest that a human asking the question...

“What is the need for God?”

...is the metaphorical equivalent of a watermelon seed - suspended within the pulp of a fully-fruitioned watermelon - asking the question...

“What is the need for the watermelon?”
_______

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:38 pm I didn't say that God is impossible. I said that there is no need for God. I agree with you that God is possible too.

I don't even know what that means. There is no 'need' for humans either, yet here we are...

I said, "there is no need for God". Things could exist without the need for a creator. I didn't say "God is impossible".

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:39 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Things are either logically possible or impossible. God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible. Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible. The universe, however, cannot be eternal so nothing is necessary state of affair. The process of nothing to something, therefore, is possible since something is possible.

“What is the need for God?”

It depends on what the truth of reality actually is.

If it is possible that our universe is founded upon a Berkeleyan form of idealism, then if God’s mind and consciousness did not exist, then neither would this particular universe exist (therefore, no us).

If such is the case, then the “need for God” would be pretty obvious.
_______

I reach in the following conclusion during the discussion in this forum. Everything is possible. God is also possible. Therefore our universe could be the result of the creation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:28 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:32 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:07 am

bahman: Everything that is logically possible could be real.

Surely you are aware of the basic rule in logic, i.e. difference between 'logical' and 'sound'.
What is logically possible [proper syllogism] may not be sound.

Yes, I know the difference. Why my argument does not sound?

The point is, what is logically possible could real and unreal.

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.
  God is logically possible.
  Therefore God is real.

Your argument seems proper but it is unsound that God is real.
It is impossible for God to be real.

I didn't say that God is real. I said there is no need for God since things are possible.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:44 pm

bahman wrote: What is the need for God?

From my own personal perspective of reality, I suggest that a human asking the question...

“What is the need for God?”

...is the metaphorical equivalent of a watermelon seed - suspended within the pulp of a fully-fruitioned watermelon - asking the question...

“What is the need for the watermelon?”
_______

I heard that before and I agree with you. But I wouldn't stop to search for truth.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:11 pm I said, "there is no need for God". Things could exist without the need for a creator. I didn't say "God is impossible".

You are using the word 'need' in some really strange way.

There is no need for anything if you pre-suppose its existence. There is no need for The Universe. There is no need for gravity. There is no need for consciousness.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:28 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:32 pm
Yes, I know the difference. Why my argument does not sound?

The point is, what is logically possible could real and unreal.

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.
  God is logically possible.
  Therefore God is real.

Your argument seems proper but it is unsound that God is real.
It is impossible for God to be real.

I didn't say that God is real. I said there is no need for God since things are possible.

If you stick to;

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.

and if your 'everything' do not include God therein, then I can agree.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:23 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:11 pm I said, "there is no need for God". Things could exist without the need for a creator. I didn't say "God is impossible".

You are using the word 'need' in some really strange way.

There is no need for anything if you pre-suppose its existence. There is no need for The Universe. There is no need for gravity. There is no need for consciousness.

True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:18 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:28 am
The point is, what is logically possible could real and unreal.

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.
  God is logically possible.
  Therefore God is real.

Your argument seems proper but it is unsound that God is real.
It is impossible for God to be real.

I didn't say that God is real. I said there is no need for God since things are possible.

If you stick to;

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.

and if your 'everything' do not include God therein, then I can agree.

God is also possible. Everything is possible since there is no such thing as impossibility.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:18 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:17 pm
I didn't say that God is real. I said there is no need for God since things are possible.

If you stick to;

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.

and if your 'everything' do not include God therein, then I can agree.

God is also possible. Everything is possible since there is no such thing as impossibility.

Yes, God is possible at a thought in mind, any one can think of a God but God is not possible as a real thing.
Any one can think of the words square-circle in their mind literally, but it is impossible for a square-circle to be real.

Another point is while the literally idea of God can be thought-only, it cannot be imagined as imagination need a corresponding image of the real thing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:18 am
If you stick to;

• bahman:
  Everything that is logically possible could be real.

and if your 'everything' do not include God therein, then I can agree.

God is also possible. Everything is possible since there is no such thing as impossibility.

Yes, God is possible at a thought in mind, any one can think of a God but God is not possible as a real thing.
Any one can think of the words square-circle in their mind literally, but it is impossible for a square-circle to be real.

Another point is while the literally idea of God can be thought-only, it cannot be imagined as imagination need a corresponding image of the real thing.

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry. What is your reason that God cannot be real?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 am

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:35 pm
God is also possible. Everything is possible since there is no such thing as impossibility.

Yes, God is possible at a thought in mind, any one can think of a God but God is not possible as a real thing.
Any one can think of the words square-circle in their mind literally, but it is impossible for a square-circle to be real.

Another point is while the literally idea of God can be thought-only, it cannot be imagined as imagination need a corresponding image of the real thing.

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry. What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I have mentioned this before.

What is 'real' is objective, fundamentally empirical [Science] and supported by the philosophical [knowledge, critical thinking, rationality and wisdom].

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry.

Square-circle cannot be real as defined above.
Square-circle as defined within non-Ecludian geometry is merely a thought.
It is the same as the perfect circle or circular object in general Geometry which is merely a thought but can never be real [as defined].

What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I think we have discussed that in this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:01 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:10 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 am
Yes, God is possible at a thought in mind, any one can think of a God but God is not possible as a real thing.
Any one can think of the words square-circle in their mind literally, but it is impossible for a square-circle to be real.

Another point is while the literally idea of God can be thought-only, it cannot be imagined as imagination need a corresponding image of the real thing.

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry. What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I have mentioned this before.

What is 'real' is objective, fundamentally empirical [Science] and supported by the philosophical [knowledge, critical thinking, rationality and wisdom].

Square-circle is possible in reality in non-Ecludian geometry.

Square-circle cannot be real as defined above.
Square-circle as defined within non-Ecludian geometry is merely a thought.
It is the same as the perfect circle or circular object in general Geometry which is merely a thought but can never be real [as defined].

Non-Ecludian geometry is not a logical impossibility. Therefore, it could be real in a universe, of course not ours.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:01 am

What is your reason that God cannot be real?

I think we have discussed that in this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

What if you define God as the creator?