Ahh, it's good to be in the presence of philosophy buffs. [Archive]

XabolitionistX

11-15-2001, 09:55 PM

I have a question for all of you Christians out there.

I've been asking myself a lot of questions lately and some of my conclusions... scare me.

Here is my question:
How do you know that God is real?

Now wait, I know what you're thinking, "What a broad question."
Please, I know many of the philosophical arguments for God so please don't quote those here (unless you think you've got one that I haven't heard). I'm just curious if anyone can manage to justify the existence of God OUTSIDE of personal experience (or revealed theology).

In all of my searching I've come to this conclusion. (I am not satisied with this yet, as I feel I still have some pondering to do.) You cannot prove or disprove God. The more I search, the more I believe that the only way to obtain true faith in God is by a divine revelation of sorts. If you are absolutely honest with yourself when you ask the question, "How do I know God is real?" Then I think you'll find that you could probably refute most of the arguments that you formulate for his existence. (At least this was the case with myself.)

*sigh*

I apologize, I'm a little tired. I probably should have waited until tomorrow to post this but I couldn't refrain. I'm just searching for some truth. I want to believe God is real but it's difficult sometimes. I'm about to go with Kierkegaard's approach. I'm just going to swallow the pill and let God do his thing. Maybe I'll find him there... who knows? Either way, I could use some help.

Drifting off to sleep as I type,
Jason

MrCrabby

11-15-2001, 10:11 PM

I think you've come to the same conclusion that i have.

God cannot be either proven or disproven, only on a personal level.

So, i'm sorry that i can't help you out here.

mark

Benny Hicks

11-15-2001, 10:46 PM

The more I search, the more I believe that the only way to obtain true faith in God is by a divine revelation of sorts.
You got that right.
Then I think you'll find that you could probably refute most of the arguments that you formulate for his existence.
Too true, if there was a completely irrefutable arguement for the existence of God we wouldn't have atheists. We have to have faith, by faith we are saved.

Hang in there dude, I know what you're going through. When I start to give in to doubts I go and listen to praise and worship music and really worship God and sing to Him, and I find that that really helps. Also, do you ever go to church? If so, talk to people there about this. Pastors don't go to seminary for nothin' ;)

Let me know how you're doing cause I definitely feel for you bro.

In Him,
Ben

Xkcer Man

11-15-2001, 11:13 PM

I promise you that pill won't help you out.

If you do that and there is a God, you have violated God's sanctity of life. If you do that and there isn't a God, you've ended your only chance of happiness, for without God there can be no certainty of anything after death. But if you don't and instead seek after God (not from an intellectual approach, because cannot be understand unless He reveals Himself) and be prepared to trust Him, you will begin to see the way He works through this world.

Matthew 7:7-11
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Don't give up.

Chrysostom

11-16-2001, 03:45 PM

Dear Jason,
There is no absolute proof for the existence of God which will be revealed here on earth. There is no absolute proof for the existence of God which will be revealed here on earth. There is no absolute proof for the existence of God which will be revealed here on earth.

The only ways we can know Him:
1. Hear the message and have faith. If we truly have faith in and believe the gospel of grace, God reveals Himself to us
2. His divine revelation through the Bible is one of the main sources of communication to us. It's a "hard copy" of information, so to speak
3. Personal experience is what makes personal faith.

God is real, i am 99.99999999% sure. If He is not, i am the victim of insane probability or another being masquerading as the God i know. We'll never prove God exists, just as we honestly can't prove that we ourselves exist!

God created this world. He created it with a perfect plan. However, He loved SO much that He allowed us to choose against Him. And you know what? We did. But God is patient and loving, and He will forgive our sin and restore us to righteousness. All we have to do is have faith that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected that we might have eternal life!

i assure you that God exists. i assure you that i cannot prove to you that God exists. The only way to know Him is to give up our self-centered pretenses and follow Him. When we believe, He will reveal Himself.

All you can do is believe.

Have a wonderful day,
john

Phil

11-16-2001, 04:14 PM

One word man:

F-A-I-T-H

"Have faith like a little child..."

Dice

11-16-2001, 06:24 PM

How can you prove anything beyond your personal preceptions?

The fact is you cant, you can only make educated guesses. If you really think about it you believe a LOT of things based on faith.

Unregistered

11-16-2001, 10:00 PM

I am in a class called the intelectual histry of western europe this semester. I have a hard time following a lot of the deep philosphy stuff but on thing that was intresting is an idea by david hume. Hume brough the rationalism of teh enlightenment to its conclusion when he proved that you can nto priove anything. For example if you put your hand on the flame in the candle and you feel you finger burnign, that does nto neccisarily mean the flame is buring your hand. so you can not prove anything from you phyiscal sensations.
that said the existence of God seems the only logical exsplanation of life.

XabolitionistX

11-18-2001, 09:29 PM

Some of you have posted viewpoints that I've never considered.

...enligthenment is always fun...

Thanks all of you. You are helping, I assure you. Hey xkcer (I believe that was the name), when I said "the pill" what I was referring to are the certain pieces of Christianity that require and demand blind faith (i.e. a virgin birth or two of every species coming to one place on earth to hop in a boat for 40 days).

Someone asked if I go to church. Yes, I go to church.

Anyway, you guys keep it coming. I appreciate all of this.

Jason

Chrysostom

11-18-2001, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by XabolitionistX
Thanks all of you. You are helping, I assure you. Hey xkcer (I believe that was the name), when I said "the pill" what I was referring to are the certain pieces of Christianity that require and demand blind faith (i.e. a virgin birth or two of every species coming to one place on earth to hop in a boat for 40 days).My friend, i realize that these seem insanely impossible, scientifically speaking. i tell you, the only reason i don't totally dismiss them is this: they are specifically labeled as the actions of God. God is omnipotent--He can do anything he desires to do.

i'm sorry if i haven't helped any (which i think i haven't :(), but this is definitely the key to God: He is all-powerful.

You are continually in my prayers, Jason.

john

Bryan

11-18-2001, 09:59 PM

I personally believe there is proof for everything. We just haven't found all the proof that is out there.

I believe that there is somewhere hard core proof that God does exist, but we haven't found it. We may not find it until time has ended and some are with God and some are not, but I believe that it is there.

Chrysostom

11-18-2001, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by bdan
I personally believe there is proof for everything. We just haven't found all the proof that is out there.The problem here is your definition of "proof." Eventually we must come to something which is assumed.

Take, for instance, high school Geometry. You use postulates and theorems. Interesting enough, we never see the postulates proved and only see the theorems proved. How do they prove the theorems? The postulates. The postulates are, however, still unproven premises.

Eventually we must assume something which is unprovable. To "prove" that leaves are green you might show me a leaf. However, in doing this we are assuming a number of things. Here are just a few:
1. My memory of what is green is correct
2. My eyes are correctly perceiving color
3. That really is a leaf
Among millions of other things.

The point: Nothing can really be proven. It just comes down to this: where are we going to put our faith?

God's grace is really cool
john

TruthWarrior

11-21-2001, 10:16 PM

To say that God's existence cannot be proven except by divine revelation is true. But if you say that to mean that "something is true because I believe it" then you are wrong.
when we see tracks in the woods we immediately understand that something made those tracks. In the same way, God has left His fingerprints in our world (His signature) that shows us that HE indeed did create the world!
(Stephen Charnock wrote a whole book on the erroneousness and characteristics of atheism ("The Existence and Attributes of God"). I'm reading it now....pretty good book so far. )
anyways.....for example, let's look at a simple mathematical statement: 1 +1=2. No other number can be added to one and equal to; in other words, only one number fits that equation. In the same way, if you study it all out, only the God of Israel fits the equation of Creator.
The only person who knows what IS reality is the One Who is OUTSIDE reality. So there MUST be a God, Creator!

guitarman

11-23-2001, 06:39 PM

Aristotle proved the existence of a god, and Aquinas modified his ideas to prove the existence of God. Anyone care to listen?

Aaron

guitarman

11-23-2001, 06:43 PM

Eventually we must assume something which is unprovable. To "prove" that leaves are green you might show me a leaf. However, in doing this we are assuming a number of things. Here are just a few:
1. My memory of what is green is correct
2. My eyes are correctly perceiving color
3. That really is a leaf

Correct. You can not initially prove that a leaf is green. However, you can prove that a leaf exists. From that basis, you can prove that a leaf is green (assuming it is summer) and so on. Also, you would not base your proof on what "your eyes" interpret as green. You would base your proof on the definition of a leaf.

Aaron

Chrysostom

11-24-2001, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by guitarman
Correct. You can not initially prove that a leaf is green. However, you can prove that a leaf exists. From that basis, you can prove that a leaf is green (assuming it is summer) and so on. Also, you would not base your proof on what "your eyes" interpret as green. You would base your proof on the definition of a leaf.The problem here is that we are always have presuppostitions which cannot be proven or disproven. The most important (and generally unquestioned) presuppositions are "my memory is generally accurate" and "my senses are basically giving me valid data."

guitarman

11-24-2001, 09:55 AM

Ok, then is it possible that we can know anything for sure?

Aaron

Chrysostom

11-25-2001, 10:49 PM

No, we cannot know anything for sure. All we can do is judge certainties on our own scales and choose to believe in some things.

guitarman

11-26-2001, 12:05 AM

Shall we start a new thread on that topic or shall we argue it here?

Aaron

Chrysostom

11-26-2001, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by guitarman
Shall we start a new thread on that topic or shall we argue it here?This thread would probably be fine, as i don't think the originator has replied too much recently.

You're well-versed in philosophers, as i recall. i think that there was some guy in the late 1800s that had some idea about not being able to prove that a fire heated a coffee mug or that a lit candle gave off heat... remember anything along those lines? Not to say i'm arguing his ideas, but i think they're compatible with my own.

guitarman

11-26-2001, 03:10 PM

No, we cannot know anything for sure. All we can do is judge certainties on our own scales and choose to believe in some things.

I will start with this. It is self-contradictory to say that "we can not know anything at all" because you "know" that you can not know anything. Thus, to make this statement and be able to stand by it is to stand by a knowledge of a sort. It is like saying "there are no absolutes." If there were no absolutes, then that statement is self-contradictory as it is itself an absolute. Make sense?

Aaron

guitarman

11-26-2001, 03:15 PM

You're well-versed in philosophers, as i recall. i think that there was some guy in the late 1800s that had some idea about not being able to prove that a fire heated a coffee mug or that a lit candle gave off heat... remember anything along those lines? Not to say i'm arguing his ideas, but i think they're compatible with my own.

I can't say that I recall an argument of that sort, but that in no way implies that it does not exist :). If you can find the name (or anyone else can give the name) I will check it out. The only school of thought regarding this philosophy that I know much about is a group called the "Academics." They were around the time of St. Augustine and claimed that you can not know anything for sure. Augustine wrote a treatise called "Against the Academics" in response to them. I have studied this to some extent, but not thoroughly. Again, if you can give me some names, I'll do what I can to check them out. As of now, the only argument that I am aware of is the Academics.

Aaron

Adam

11-26-2001, 03:35 PM

You're well-versed in philosophers, as i recall. i think that there was some guy in the late 1800s that had some idea about not being able to prove that a fire heated a coffee mug or that a lit candle gave off heat... remember anything along those lines? Not to say i'm arguing his ideas, but i think they're compatible with my own.

John Locke, the father of the empiricists, believed these (as well as others, each preceding one being more radical than the first).

They believed that, for example, the concept of heat does not exist within an object itself. Rather, it is the idea of heat(that you acquire from experience) that tells you heat is there. Heat, sound, or cold do not exist without perception and reflection in the mind. So, yes, heat and the like are unprovable. Locke says matter is tasteless and colorless without perception of the qualities.

Chrysostom

11-26-2001, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
I will start with this. It is self-contradictory to say that "we can not know anything at all" because you "know" that you can not know anything. Thus, to make this statement and be able to stand by it is to stand by a knowledge of a sort. It is like saying "there are no absolutes." If there were no absolutes, then that statement is self-contradictory as it is itself an absolute. Make sense?i can logically reason this with no "evidence." In my opinion, that gives it validity through "i think, therefore i am." That is probably the only provable statement, therefore all things which can be absolutely true must be based with that premise.

Surely you understand the concept, though, yes?

Chrysostom

11-26-2001, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
I can't say that I recall an argument of that sort, but that in no way implies that it does not exist :). If you can find the name (or anyone else can give the name) I will check it out. The only school of thought regarding this philosophy that I know much about is a group called the "Academics." They were around the time of St. Augustine and claimed that you can not know anything for sure. Augustine wrote a treatise called "Against the Academics" in response to them. I have studied this to some extent, but not thoroughly. Again, if you can give me some names, I'll do what I can to check them out. As of now, the only argument that I am aware of is the Academics.Okay, then my argument is this: go camping, and get a fire going. Put marshmallows on coathangers and "roast" them over the fire. Now prove that it is the fire heating them and not pink unicorns from Venus. You can't; you just consider that to be most reasonable.

guitarman

11-26-2001, 05:09 PM

Okay, then my argument is this: go camping, and get a fire going. Put marshmallows on coathangers and "roast" them over the fire. Now prove that it is the fire heating them and not pink unicorns from Venus. You can't; you just consider that to be most reasonable.

This does not prove that it is impossible to know anything. All this says is that it is impossible to know the validity of a sensible (a sensible being something that is observed with the senses). I will agree with you on this point (that is, after I have now thought it out).

Mathematical truths (as well as logic and so on) are known as intelligibles. Only intelligible truths can be known. Sensibles can not. That is the standpoint from which I will now argue (since I have yet to state my position :)).

Now, can you prove that it is impossible to know for sure that 1+1=2?

Aaron

Chrysostom

11-26-2001, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
This does not prove that it is impossible to know anything. All this says is that it is impossible to know the validity of a sensible (a sensible being something that is observed with the senses). I will agree with you on this point (that is, after I have now thought it out).

Mathematical truths (as well as logic and so on) are known as intelligibles. Only intelligible truths can be known. Sensibles can not. That is the standpoint from which I will now argue (since I have yet to state my position :)).

Now, can you prove that it is impossible to know for sure that 1+1=2?My reference to the impossibility to "know" anything was specifically directed toward what you are calling sensibles; for instance, we can't really prove God's existence, only consider the relative likelihoods (as per ourselves) thereof.

guitarman

11-26-2001, 05:12 PM

XabolitionistX

11-26-2001, 06:36 PM

Yeah I'm still here you guys.

Fell free to go off on this though (as you already have).

I'm all about new topics.

Jason

Chrysostom

11-26-2001, 06:49 PM

Gotcha, Jason :)

guitarman

11-26-2001, 08:19 PM

i can logically reason this with no "evidence." In my opinion, that gives it validity through "i think, therefore i am." That is probably the only provable statement, therefore all things which can be absolutely true must be based with that premise.

Not totally sure what you said here...

Tell me if this is correct. You are saying that the only statement that one can prove to be true is, "I think, therfore I am," and based on this statement, all other truths can be known? Explicit in this idea is that "I think, therefore I am" is the only premise from which we can know anything - there is no other starting point in existence that can give you the solidarity found in the proof of this statement?

Surely you understand the concept, though, yes?
Are you asking if I understand the concept of "I think, therefore I am" or the entirety of what you said (of which I am not sure what you meant)?

Aaron

TruthWarrior

11-26-2001, 09:04 PM

ok.....i must discuss that "i think, therefore i am" statement by thoughtful Descartes.
I presume that he means "because i engage in the action of thought, therefore I do exist". Thereby meaning that the action defines the thought behind it therefore proving that whatever acted exists?
So isn't this going back to what I said before....about God leaving His "tracks"( thoughts producing action) in creation thereby proving His existence and eternality?

guitarman

11-26-2001, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by TruthWarrior
ok.....i must discuss that "i think, therefore i am" statement by thoughtful Descartes.
I presume that he means "because i engage in the action of thought, therefore I do exist". Thereby meaning that the action defines the thought behind it therefore proving that whatever acted exists?
So isn't this going back to what I said before....about God leaving His "tracks"( thoughts producing action) in creation thereby proving His existence and eternality?

Perhaps. You have combined the argument for the existence of God by first causes with Descartes argument for the existence of at least a mind. Interesting.

I presume that he means "because i engage in the action of thought, therefore I do exist".

I do not think that "action" is a premise here. The only assumption being made is existence (that is, that "I am").

So isn't this going back to what I said before....about God leaving His "tracks"( thoughts producing action) in creation thereby proving His existence and eternality?

I don't see how our thoughts producing action (which I do not see in this philosophy to begin with) is evidence of God. Now, if there were a basis that held the tenant that our thoughts produce action, and if it was coupled with the first cause argument, then you might be able to conclude God. But even from that I think it would be difficult and shaky.

Aaron

Chrysostom

11-27-2001, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by guitarman
Not totally sure what you said here...

Tell me if this is correct. You are saying that the only statement that one can prove to be true is, "I think, therfore I am," and based on this statement, all other truths can be known? Explicit in this idea is that "I think, therefore I am" is the only premise from which we can know anything - there is no other starting point in existence that can give you the solidarity found in the proof of this statement?"i think, therefore i am" is self-evident in that the "i" which exists is defining as "a thinking entity." Therefore, thinking constitutes the "i" as existing. Because this is the only thing which can be absolutely proven, anything else which is "proven" must simply be a corollary or logical conclusion with this at the base.

In understanding physically existential concepts, it is impossible to have full certainty because they must be based upon premises which are not absolutely provable (i believe you called these "sensibles").

Originally posted by guitarman
Are you asking if I understand the concept of "I think, therefore I am" or the entirety of what you said (of which I am not sure what you meant)?The entirety of what i said. Forgive me, because i am frequently absent-minded, and my verbosity compounds to foster great logical gaps in what i write.

The concept is that we can't really prove that God exists or that our car exists. We can't prove that evolution happened and we can't prove that healthy grass is green. They are all based on unproven premises. However, things can be considered very likely (such as that your name is Aaron or my name is john).

guitarman

11-27-2001, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by mustbenothing
"i think, therefore i am" is self-evident in that the "i" which exists is defining as "a thinking entity." Therefore, thinking constitutes the "i" as existing.
I agree with this because I see no error in any of the statements.

I do, however, see a problem with this statement as a modern philosophical basis for life, and I think you will agree. This statement leads to a narcissistic way of life. It focuses everything that a person knows on an inward, self-centered understanding...all of life is focused on what can be shown from their own existence. As a Christian, I find this hard to accept (that is, not hard to accept as truth, but hard to accept as the only basic truth).

You have really got me thinking right now. I realize that I have left my response open-ended and unconcluded. I wanted to mention those things and see what your response is.

Originally posted by mustbenothing
Because this is the only thing which can be absolutely proven, anything else which is "proven" must simply be a corollary or logical conclusion with this at the base.
I can find no other thing which can be absolutely proved aside from this statement. Can you? As I said above, it would seem to me, as a Christian, that there MUST be some basis other than ourselves from which we can draw conclusions. Christianity says that all things come from God. Thus, there MUST be a basis other than ourselves. Again, I am leaving this open-ended because at the moment, I don't have an answer.

Here is the single error I find in "I think, therefore I am" :
It is not an exhaustive proof of what exists. It's basis of what exists is solely the fact that "I think." This statement assumes that cognition preceeds being. However, the fact that "I am" indicates that at one point "I was not" because there was a point at which "I did not think." However, there was a point at which I existed but did not "think" (I am refering to when I was a baby or even before my mind was formed in my mother's womb). The only option left open by this line of reasoning is: I came into existence as a thinking creature (that is, I popped into existence when I was 1, 5, 12 yrs old - whenever my first cognitive thought or memory was formed). Any point in time that I did not think, I did not exist. However, it is by my thinking that I am able to reason that I did exist before my mental faculties were in place. Thus, I have to choose from one of two conclusions:
1) I can not trust my "thinking"
2) I can trust my "thinking" (and therefore "I think, therefore I am" is not an exhaustive conclusion of the fact that "I think").

Aaron

TruthWarrior

11-27-2001, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by guitarman

I don't see how our thoughts producing action (which I do not see in this philosophy to begin with) is evidence of God. Now, if there were a basis that held the tenant that our thoughts produce action, and if it was coupled with the first cause argument, then you might be able to conclude God. But even from that I think it would be difficult and shaky.

Aaron

I see....thanks for pointing that out! Hmmm...i didn't think that through...
I was moving that perhaps the evidences of God's thoughts or Him actually thinking prove His existence. Like, I think "run"--therefore I "run".
God thought up the world---therefore He created it---therefore He exists.
I'm speaking from the idea that "whatever creates, exists"--which idea I thought was in the aphorism "I think, therefore I am"

wasn't this whole thread on proving God's existence?

guitarman

11-27-2001, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Truth Warrior
wasn't this whole thread on proving God's existence?

Originally posted by XabolitionistX
Here is my question:
How do you know that God is real?

I'd say so :).

However, mustbenothing's point is that in order to prove anything, you must start with the assumption that things exist. If we do not exist, then we can not be sure that God exists. How do we prove that we exist? Well, the idea that "I think, therefore I am" says that since we think, we must at least have the capacity to think, therefore, "thought" exists. We can then move on from that premise to determine what else is true.

Originally posted by Truth Warrior
God thought up the world---therefore He created it---therefore He exists.
I'm speaking from the idea that "whatever creates, exists"--which idea I thought was in the aphorism "I think, therefore I am"
Well, if you were God then this might work. From "I think, therefore I am" all we can conclude is that we exist. We can't jump straight from that truth to the fact that God exists. You must build a proof for the existence of God from something other than assuming that "God thought up the world." You don't even know that God thinks, let alone the fact that his thoughts cause creation. Make sense?

Basically, what this boils down to is, "How do you know that God thought up the world if you don't even know that the world exists?"

Aaron

TruthWarrior

11-27-2001, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by guitarman

Well, if you were God then this might work. From "I think, therefore I am" all we can conclude is that we exist. We can't jump straight from that truth to the fact that God exists. You must build a proof for the existence of God from something other than assuming that "God thought up the world." You don't even know that God thinks, let alone the fact that his thoughts cause creation. Make sense?

Basically, what this boils down to is, "How do you know that God thought up the world if you don't even know that the world exists?"

Aaron

So the presupposition of this argument is that God does not exist. And from this we are going to prove He DOES in fact exist. In short, you are saying "Does God exist" as if we had no knowledge of his existence? ok. I see.
...And in order for us to prove He exists we must find the measure wherewith we prove the existence of ANYTHING?
So...we are trying to prove God's existence without the use of the Scriptures but through pure philosophy and reasoning....now my brain says ,"ouch!".

phew......let me think....

oh! and yes, what you are saying does make sense.

guitarman

11-27-2001, 08:02 PM

So...we are trying to prove God's existence without the use of the Scriptures but through pure philosophy and reasoning....
Yes.

....now my brain says ,"ouch!".
Yes!

Aaron

Chrysostom

11-28-2001, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
I can find no other thing which can be absolutely proved aside from this statement. Can you? As I said above, it would seem to me, as a Christian, that there MUST be some basis other than ourselves from which we can draw conclusions. Christianity says that all things come from God. Thus, there MUST be a basis other than ourselves. Again, I am leaving this open-ended because at the moment, I don't have an answer.Like i said, i don't think we can really prove much of anything. It's all faith and likelihoods.

Originally posted by guitarman
Here is the single error I find in "I think, therefore I am" :
It is not an exhaustive proof of what exists. It's basis of what exists is solely the fact that "I think." This statement assumes that cognition preceeds being. However, the fact that "I am" indicates that at one point "I was not" because there was a point at which "I did not think." However, there was a point at which I existed but did not "think" (I am refering to when I was a baby or even before my mind was formed in my mother's womb).Sorry, i figured i'd cut you off here. If you think, you exist. However, if you exist you don't necessarily think. Using the contrapositive :)

TruthWarrior

11-28-2001, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by mustbenothing
Like i said, i don't think we can really prove much of anything. It's all faith and likelihoods.

Ok...

To prove something is to imply that it exists. To say that nothing can be proven is to say that NOTHING EXISTS.---that there is no such thing as reality. If that is true than you aren't really saying that there is really no reality. Such a conclusion (that nothing truly exists) is to say that God is not real and that nothing is real. Sin is simply a figment of our imagination; worse yet, God is just a figment of our imagination which isn't real at all either. And so, we are left with nothingness.
But, if nothing is then why ARE we?

TruthWarrior

11-28-2001, 10:47 PM

guitarman

11-29-2001, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by mustbenothing
Sorry, i figured i'd cut you off here. If you think, you exist.

You are assuming that your thougts are reliable. In order for you to understand the statement, "I think, therefore I am," you must cognitively verify it's accuracy (you use your thoughts to verify that the statement is true). But my question is this, how do you know that your thoughts are reliable? How do you know your cognitive process that verifies the statement, "I think, therefore I am" is accurate and trustworthy? It would seem to me that the only way you could know that your thoughts are reliable is through inductive reasoning. However, it appers that you don't like to use any sort of inductive reasoning.

Also, for one to say that this idea of "I think, therefore I am" is true makes the basic assumption that truth and falsity exist. How can you prove that truth and falsity exist?

Aaron

guitarman

11-29-2001, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by mustbenothing
Like i said, i don't think we can really prove much of anything. It's all faith and likelihoods.

Originally posted by Truth Warrior
To prove something is to imply that it exists. To say that nothing can be proven is to say that NOTHING EXISTS.---that there is no such thing as reality.

To prove the existence of something indeed implies that it exists - it proves that it exists:). To say that nothing can be proven is to say, "there is nothing we can prove the existence of." - it does not say that nothing exists.

In other words:
"nothing can be proved to exist" (not)= "nothing exists"

["(not)=" means "not equal to"]

Aaron

Luke

11-30-2001, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by TruthWarrior
To prove something is to imply that it exists. To say that nothing can be proven is to say that NOTHING EXISTS.---that there is no such thing as reality. If that is true than you aren't really saying that there is really no reality. Such a conclusion (that nothing truly exists) is to say that God is not real and that nothing is real. Sin is simply a figment of our imagination; worse yet, God is just a figment of our imagination which isn't real at all either. And so, we are left with nothingness.
But, if nothing is then why ARE we?Something can exist and we not be able to prove its existence. For instance, prove to me that you exist.

Faith is the only chance. God said it--faith alone.

Chrysostom

11-30-2001, 12:40 AM

Sorry, that was me. i'm at Luke's

guitarman

11-30-2001, 03:15 PM

Ummm.....waiting for a response :).

Aaron

Chrysostom

12-03-2001, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
You are assuming that your thougts are reliable. In order for you to understand the statement, "I think, therefore I am," you must cognitively verify it's accuracy (you use your thoughts to verify that the statement is true). But my question is this, how do you know that your thoughts are reliable? How do you know your cognitive process that verifies the statement, "I think, therefore I am" is accurate and trustworthy? It would seem to me that the only way you could know that your thoughts are reliable is through inductive reasoning. However, it appers that you don't like to use any sort of inductive reasoning.i don't really see where you're coming from. "i" exists solely because "i" is an entity--this is quite easily proven deductively because "i" is thinking. The "i" which exists is "my consciousness" and is self-evidently existent. My own thoughts do not have to be reliable, they have simply to exist. Therefore, "i" is defined as these thoughts, and the thoughts clearly exist. Therefore, "i" exists by substitution ("i" and the "thoughts" are one and the same, in this case).

Originally posted by guitarman
Also, for one to say that this idea of "I think, therefore I am" is true makes the basic assumption that truth and falsity exist. How can you prove that truth and falsity exist?These are merely abstract concepts which we clearly understand. If i say, "i exist," i may view this as "right," which i will not define because you know the definition thereof. However, if i say, "i do not exist," then this is "wrong."

Chrysostom

12-03-2001, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
To prove the existence of something indeed implies that it exists - it proves that it exists:). To say that nothing can be proven is to say, "there is nothing we can prove the existence of." - it does not say that nothing exists.

In other words:
"nothing can be proved to exist" (not)= "nothing exists"

["(not)=" means "not equal to"]Did i ever say this was wrong?

It is quite obvious that something can exist without my knowledge of its existence.

guitarman

12-03-2001, 06:49 PM

About that last thing....it was in response to Truth Warrior.

Aaron

guitarman

12-03-2001, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by mustbenothing
i don't really see where you're coming from. "i" exists solely because "i" is an entity--this is quite easily proven deductively because "i" is thinking. The "i" which exists is "my consciousness" and is self-evidently existent. My own thoughts do not have to be reliable, they have simply to exist. Therefore, "i" is defined as these thoughts, and the thoughts clearly exist. Therefore, "i" exists by substitution ("i" and the "thoughts" are one and the same, in this case).

To say, "Therefore, "i" is defined as these thoughts, and the thoughts clearly exist " you must consciously defined "I" as your thoughts. Nothing is defined except by conscious decision to define it. Thus, it is by assuming that your cognition is accurate in it's definition of "I" as "thinking" that you have the conclusion, "I think, therefore I am." And now you have based "I think, therefore I am" on an assumption.

Also: "The "i" which exists is "my consciousness" and is self-evidently existent. " If it is "self-evidently existent", then you have made an assumption that it is "self-evident."

Originally posted by mustbenothing
These are merely abstract concepts which we clearly understand.
It was these "abstract concepts" that Descartes was exploring when he decided he needed a better explanation for everything. Math concepts are abstract, are they not? If so, then these concepts must have been in existence before "I" was in existence. Thus, my existence is not the basis of anything we can prove. These "abstract concepts" must be the basis. No?

Aaron

Chrysostom

12-04-2001, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by guitarman
To say, "Therefore, "i" is defined as these thoughts, and the thoughts clearly exist " you must consciously defined "I" as your thoughts. Nothing is defined except by conscious decision to define it. Thus, it is by assuming that your cognition is accurate in it's definition of "I" as "thinking" that you have the conclusion, "I think, therefore I am." And now you have based "I think, therefore I am" on an assumption.You didn't consciously define "i"; that's just the word i am using. By "i" i only mean to say that the consciousness exists. In contemplating existence i have thought and, therefore, exist (the consciousness\thoughts exist, which is all "i" refers to).

Originally posted by guitarman
Also: "The "i" which exists is "my consciousness" and is self-evidently existent. " If it is "self-evidently existent", then you have made an assumption that it is "self-evident."i haven't made an assumption that it is sel-evident. As i said, in wondering whether or not i exist i have thought, therefore these thoughts exist.

Originally posted by guitarman
It was these "abstract concepts" that Descartes was exploring when he decided he needed a better explanation for everything. Math concepts are abstract, are they not? If so, then these concepts must have been in existence before "I" was in existence. Thus, my existence is not the basis of anything we can prove. These "abstract concepts" must be the basis. No? i'm not sure about the timeline, as we haven't proven it (what existed before what).

i will essentially agree with you. However, it is important to note that while these abstract concepts can exist even if we don't know what they are, we haven't proven that they exist. i think you could probably make a case for right\wrong in the sentence of truth\validity.

Anyways, got class.

good talking to ya'
john