Philosophy Now Forum

Y?

Simple human minds? Unable to think outside of hierarchical and self-serving structures?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:10 pmY?

If "God" means "First Cause," then the answer is self-evident. If it means something less than that, such as a created "god," not the First Cause, then it doesn't mean "God."

You've answered your own question, really.

The correlative of that is if the universe were created by some external intelligence why must we superimpose a God definition on it?

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:48 pm The correlative of that is if the universe were created by some external intelligence why must we superimpose a God definition on it?

What "external intelligence" did you have in mind?

If you say "aliens," then all you've done is move the problem back one step: who created aliens, since they are manifestly contingent beings too. Or if you say, "a bunch of gods," then they aren't the First Cause of anything, just another bunch of contingent beings -- super-powered aliens, if you will. So what "First Cause" would you posit that is intelligent but, according to your objection, doesn't merit the name "God"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:09 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:48 pm The correlative of that is if the universe were created by some external intelligence why must we superimpose a God definition on it?

What "external intelligence" did you have in mind?

How would I know! How could ANYBODY know? Whatever it was (if it ever was!) would not need to have our ancient god superstitions imposed on it.

Also, who ever came to that ultimate and final conclusion that a First Cause necessitates a God agent? One could say it appears "god-like" but that's still a universe away from god.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:56 pm

What "external intelligence" did you have in mind?

How would I know!

Because it was your suggestion. I would have thought you'd have had something specific in mind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:31 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:56 pm

What "external intelligence" did you have in mind?

How would I know!

Because it was your suggestion. I would have thought you'd have had something specific in mind.

My "suggestion" was counter to anything "specific" including any denotations of god. That was the whole point! There is nothing "specific" we can ever get to know about it.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:45 am There is nothing "specific" we can ever get to know about it.

What line of reasoning led you to conclude this?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:52 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:45 am There is nothing "specific" we can ever get to know about it.

What line of reasoning led you to conclude this?

...after all our "amicable" conversations, you still need to ask!

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:14 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:52 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:45 am There is nothing "specific" we can ever get to know about it.

What line of reasoning led you to conclude this?

...after all our "amicable" conversations, you still need to ask!

Indeed I do. To my knowledge, no line of reasoning has every been offered that is capable of justifying that conclusion. But if I'm wrong about that, go ahead: the floor is yours.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:10 pmY?

"God" is implicitly defined as some entity of human-like emotive essence by those who use the word and believe in it explicitly. "God" implies a VALUE of "good" and where the term of the DUAL values of good versus non-good are derived. That which follows this essence but is understood by believers to be, is the counter 'evil', which is derived from "Eve", meaning literally, "that which follows".

A non-theist lacks the capacity to assure that no emotive being existed prior to us as a potential source. But it begs that if such a being existed, it too has some prior cause. But an "atheists" simply asserts being in opposition to the view of any religion as some default rational assumption. We learn to BE religious in our environment and are not born this way.

As an atheist myself, I don't presume the conditional statement, "IF (God) actually exists, THEN it is something that creates the world." This may be used in arguments by some atheists I am not at present aware of. It would only make sense IF the meaning of "God" was diminished to mean "any source causation", to which it is then just a logical construct. One may demonstrate that Anselm's Cosmological Argument that attempts to prove God's existence is logically valid but ONLY by diminishing that meaning of "God" to an unknown variable AT MOST.

How do you interpret that 'atheists insist' anything? The conditional is not the same as assuming the antecedent, "there is a God".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:03 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:10 pmY?

If "God" means "First Cause," then the answer is self-evident. If it means something less than that, such as a created "god," not the First Cause, then it doesn't mean "God."

BUT! God does NOT mean first cause.

Exactly where are you getting this idea that God created the universe from?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:03 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:10 pmY?

If "God" means "First Cause," then the answer is self-evident. If it means something less than that, such as a created "god," not the First Cause, then it doesn't mean "God."

BUT! God does NOT mean first cause.

Then it's not the Christian-Jewish God you're talking about. So what is it...Thor? Ishtar? Zeus? Those are the "gods" that aren't said to be the First Cause

Exactly where are you getting this idea that God created the universe from?

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

Now, the point is not whether you believe it's true, or whether or not somebody can prove to your satisfaction that it's true: it's that Christians and Jews define their conception of God in precisely that way. In other words, if you insist on referring to an entity that DID NOT create the heavens and the earth, you're not referring to the conception of God they have.

For them, God means nothing less than "First Cause." It means a good deal more, of course; but it never means less.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:33 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:03 pm
If "God" means "First Cause," then the answer is self-evident. If it means something less than that, such as a created "god," not the First Cause, then it doesn't mean "God."

BUT! God does NOT mean first cause.

Then it's not the Christian-Jewish God you're talking about.

No, its simply you misunderstanding the concept.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:33 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:09 amExactly where are you getting this idea that God created the universe from?

The very first verse in the Torah / Old Testament. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." That's "where."

That is NOT stating that God created the UNIVERSE.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:33 pmNow, the point is not whether you believe it's true, or whether or not somebody can prove to your satisfaction that it's true: it's that Christians and Jews define their conception of God in precisely that way. In other words, if you insist on referring to an entity that DID NOT create the heavens and the earth, you're not referring to the conception of God they have.

For them, God means nothing less than "First Cause." It means a good deal more, of course; but it never means less.

You do like to feel that you belong to a group consensus don't you Immanuel? Its black or white for you. Unfortunately, the more intelligent Christians can think a lot deeper about such things.
Such as, that heavens and Earth relate to the creation of our REALITY - and what we perceive as REALITY.
There is nothing in:- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." that denotes the creation of the UNIVERSE.